Locke v. Kraut

• Decision Date: 13 June 1912
• Citation: 83 A. 626,85 Conn. 486
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LOCKE v. KRAUT.

83 A. 626

85 Conn. 486

LOCKE v. KRAUT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 13, 1912

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Howard B Scott, Judge.

Action by Thomas Locke against Nathan Kraut. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Robert G. De Forest, of Bridgeport, for appellant. Joshua Meltzer and Henry E. Shannon, both of Bridgeport, for appellee.

WHEELER, J.

The sole question in the case relates to the admissibility of certain evidence introduced by the plaintiff on the trial. It was agreed on the trial that there was an agreed contract price for the work, and that such contract price should govern. The plaintiff contended that the contract price was $1,600, if a certain brick wall shown on the plans should not be built, with an addition of $250 if it should be built. The defendant contended that $1,600 was the price agreed upon including the brick wall, and that $250 was to be deducted from the $1,600 if the brick wall was not built. The brick wall was eliminated. The plaintiff entered upon and completed the performance of his contract, and the damages claimed were for the balance due on the contract price.

There were only three persons present when the price was agreed upon-the plaintiff, the defendant, and his son. The plaintiff testified in accordance with his contention as related above. The defendant and his son testified in accordance with the defendant's contention as stated, and the defendant's claim was also supported by the testimony of a disinterested witness, who testified that, soon after the contract had been made, he heard the parties in conversation agree that $1,600 was to include the price of the brick wall, if it was built.

The plaintiff offered the testimony of three expert witnesses as to what the work in question was reasonably worth, so as to enable the court to determine which contention was probably true. The experts gave their estimates as to what the work was reasonably worth to do, based on their own judgment and calculation of the scope and compass of the work after an inspection of the plans and specifications. There was no claim in the pleadings of a reasonable compensation for said work. The defendant objected to any such testimony being offered to prove the claim of the plaintiff as to what the contract and agreed price for said work actually was, upon the grounds that such testimony was wholly irrelevant to the issue, incompetent, and entirely remote. The court overruled said objection, and admitted the evidence for the purposes for which it was offered, and the defendant duly excepted.

It appears from the finding that the court was satisfied by the expert testimony that $1,600 was a reasonable price for a contractor to offer to perform the work for, if the brick wall was not to be included, and that a contractor could not carry out a contract to include the brick wall at the price of $1,600 except at a loss. The court upon all the evidence decided that the price agreed upon was $1,600, with the brick wall eliminated, and the judgment includes the $250 in dispute.

The defendant claims that the sole question at issue was the agreed contract price, and that it made no difference what the work was reasonably worth to do. It is clear that the evidence...