Loomis v. Gillett
| Decision Date | 05 December 1902 |
| Citation | 53 A. 581,75 Conn. 298 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | LOOMIS v. GILLETT. |
Appeal from city court of Hartford; Lewis E. Stanton, Judge.
Action for services rendered and material furnished, by Hiram G. Loomis against Albert B. Gillett. Prom a judgment granting insufficient relief to plaintiff, he appeals. Beversed.
This action is brought to recover the price and value of services rendered and materials furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant The bill of particulars specifies the services rendered and materials furnished, giving the date of each item and the amount charged for the same. All the items are for the services and expenses of the plaintiff, as a civil engineer, in surveying land for the defendant from April 13, 1896, to August 2, 1897. The whole amount charged for the several items is $224. As to six of these items, amounting to $47, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had authorized the same, and disallowed the items. As to the remaining items, amounting to $177, the court found that the services and materials specified were rendered and furnished at the defendant's request, and were of the price and value stated in the bill of particulars, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff to recover that amount. The plaintiff claims error because the court refused to include in its judgment interest on the sum found due, by way of damages for its detention. For the purpose of presenting this question of law, the trial court has found the following additional facts: The plaintiff presented bills for the services rendered as the work progressed, and, after its completion, presented a bill for $224, which included $177 for the services rendered upon request, and $47 for those rendered without authority. The parties never agreed upon the amount of the bill, and the same was fairly in dispute between them. The dates on which these bills were presented did not appear. No other demand for a sum certain was made by the plaintiff before the commencement of this action in March, 1901. Upon the facts thus found, the court refused to allow interest by way of damages, upon the ground that the bill was a mere unliquidated account on book, and was at all times a matter of dispute between the parties, and therefore ruled, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest.
Joseph P. Tuttle, for appellant.
Arthur L. Shipman, for appellee.
HAMERSLEY, J. (after stating the facts)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dilieto v. Cnty. Obstetrics & Gynecology Grp., P.C.
...as damages for the unlawful detention, interest at not less than the legal rate, unless he has otherwise agreed”); Loomis v. Gillett, 75 Conn. 298, 300–301, 53 A. 581 (1902) ( “[u]pon an action to recover damage[s] for the nonpayment of [a] debt, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damage[......
-
Brennan v. Brennan Assocs.
...when the money is due and payable”); see also Belisle v. Berkshire Ice Co., 98 Conn. 689, 696, 120 A. 599 (1923) ; Loomis v. Gillett, 75 Conn. 298, 300–301, 53 A. 581 (1902).Applying this interpretation of § 34–362(h) to the present case, we conclude that the plaintiff is not entitled to in......
-
Paulus v. LaSala
...judgment); or hold that prejudgment interest runs to the date of the judgment without referring to a statute. Loomis v. Gillett, 75 Conn. 298, 301, 53 A. 581 (1902); Regan v. New York & New England R. R. Co., 60 Conn. 124, 142, 22 A. 503 (1891); Parrott v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 47 Conn. 575......
-
Wallenta v. Moscowitz
...judgment); or hold that prejudgment interest runs to the date of the judgment without referring to a statute. Loomis v. Gillett, 75 Conn. 298, 301, 53 A. 581 (1902); Regan v. New York & New England R. R. Co., 60 Conn. 124, 142, 22 A. 503 (1891); Parrott v. Housatonic R. R. Co., 47 Conn. 575......