Mater Ice Mach. & Eng'g Co. v. van Voorhis

• Decision Date: 08 November 1915
• Citation: 95 A. 735
• Parties: MATER ICE MACHINE & ENGINEERING CO. v. VAN VOORHIS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

95 A. 735

MATER ICE MACHINE & ENGINEERING CO.

v. VAN VOORHIS et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 8, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morris County.

Suit by the Mayer Ice Machine & Engineering Company against Preston A. Van Voorhis and another. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remitted, with instructions.

Argued February term, 1915, before GUMMERE, C. J., and GARRISON and MINTURN, JJ.

King & Vogt, of Morristown, for appellants. Willard W. Cutler, of Morristown, for respondent.

GUMMERE, C. J. The plaintiff filed a mechanic's lien on the property of the defendant, the Leonard Hygiene Ice Company, and brought suit thereon to enforce a claim of $1,500, the balance due on a written contract made by it with Van Voorhis, the primary contractor, joining the builder and owner as parties defendant.

The primary contract between Van Voorhis and the Leonard Company was for the construction of an artificial ice plant. The subcontract between Van Voorhis and the plaintiff was for the construction of an ice-making tank, which was a part of that plant. By the terms of the latter contract the plaintiff guaranteed "the material and workmanship to be first class in every respect."

The defendants answered the plaintiff's complaint jointly, and, among other matters, set up a claim of recoupment, basing it upon the fact that after the installation of the ice making tank by the plaintiff the freezing coils thereof broke, causing a loss to the Leonard Company of large quantities of brine and ammonia gas, and that the breaking of these coils was due to poor workmanship and the use of defective material. At the close of the trial plaintiff's counsel moved the direction of a verdict for the full amount of its claim, upon the ground that, even if it was true that the Leonard Company had suffered damages by reason of the matters specified in defendants' answer, that company had no legal right to counterclaim under a contract between plaintiff and Van Voorhis to which it was not a party. The trial judge, being in doubt as to the proper disposition to be made of this motion, reserved decision upon it, and left it to the jury to find specially whether or not the break in the freezing coils was due to defective material or workmanship, and, if it was, then the damages suffered by the Leonard Company by reason of such break. The jury found that the break was due to the causes specified, and that the loss sustained by the Leonard Company as the, direct result thereof was $589.09. Subsequent to the rendition of this verdict the trial judge, having reached the conclusion that the loss suffered by the Leonard Company could not be made the subject of a recoupment in the present action, directed judgment to be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of its claim —generally against the builder, and specially against the owner. From the judgment entered in accordance with this direction, the defendants appeal.

Our Mechanics' Lien Law permits but a single judgment to be entered against both builder and owner, so far as the amount thereof is concerned; in other words, it is only for the amount recoverable by the plaintiff against the builder that a special judgment can be entered against the owner. The real question between the parties, therefore, is whether Van Voorhis was entitled...