McNamara v. Douglas

• Decision Date: 14 July 1905
• Citation: McNamara v. Douglas, 78 Conn. 219, 61 A. 368 (Conn. 1905)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: McNAMARA v. DOUGLAS.

61 A. 368

78 Conn. 219

McNAMARA

v. DOUGLAS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 14, 1905.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; James Bishop, Judge.

Action by Daniel E. McNamara against Amelia R. Douglas. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

William H. Ely and Albert H. Barclay, for appellant. Charles H. Fisher, for appellee.

BALDWIN, J. The answer stated that the note in suit was obtained by false and fraudulent representations and duress; that the plaintiff had agreed to put plumbing fixtures for a bathroom into the defendant's house, supplying the fixtures at what they cost him, and putting them in in the best manner and at the lowest price, so that the bathroom should be supplied with water, perfect and ready for use; that he got $217 in cash from her and the note, upon these promises, and by threats, fright, and duress; that he did not intend to keep and has not kept his promises, and got said money without consideration; and that the work and material furnished were worthless. These allegations were denied. On the trial the plaintiff offered evidence that the note was in renewal of a former one of the same amount, which the defendant had given him for plumbing work and fixtures furnished by him for a bathroom in her house; that she had agreed to pay him a reasonable price for doing the job; that she paid him $217 as the price of the fixtures; that afterwards he sent in a bill of $190.27 for the balance then justly due him under the contract; that she disputed it; that they then agreed that on her giving him the original note he would pay her $1 to compromise and settle the account in full; and that this agreement was then and there performed on both sides. Evidence was admitted from the defendant that the plaintiff agreed to do the whole job, in the manner stated in her answer, for $217; that after getting that sum from her he left the work unfinished and useless; that he threatened to sue her unless she paid him more; that she then gave him the original note on his promise that he would thereupon complete the job; that by like threats he made her give him the note in suit; that all his promises were fraudulently made; and that the bathroom is incapable of use, as made, and his work and materials were of no value. The plaintiff offered to show on rebuttal that at the time the defendant claimed that he agreed to fit up a bathroom supplied with water, ready for immediate use, it was...