Norcross v. Dillon

• Decision Date: 27 July 1805
• Citation: 32 A. 701
• Parties: NORCROSS v. DILLON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

32 A. 701

NORCROSS

v. DILLON et al.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

July 27, 1805.

Bill of interpleader by Frank T. Norcross against William H. Dillon and others. Decree for certain defendants.

Wm. M. Lanning, for defendants Fisk & Forman.

Barton & Dawes, for defendant Dillon.

BIRD, V. C. The bill which brings the issues in this case and the parties before the court is one of interpleader. The question in dispute is between the defendants, they severally claiming the moneys in the possession of the complainant. The defendant Dillon claims under a contract with Deats to do the mason work upon the house of Norcross for the sum of $770, $250 having been paid on account thereof. The contractor, Deats, admits making a contract with Dillon, but insists that the sum for which Dillon was to do the work was $570. He demanded of Norcross, the owner, $420. He made this demand by serving upon Norcross, the owner, what is called the written retainer, under the third section of the mechanic's lien law. This claim is resisted by other lien claimants, upon the ground that the owner was justified in not paying it because the claim was in excess of the amount actually due to Dillon. It is important, therefore, to consider whether or not the claim of $420 so made by Dillon was in excess of the amount really due him. Deats, the contractor, says that the first agreement which Dillon made with him was to do the mason work for $070. He also says that afterwards he learned from Dillon that he bad had an interview with Norcross, the owner, and that Norcross had stated he could not go on with the building because of the cost, and had learned from Norcross that other contractors would do the work for less, when he (Dillon) told Norcross that he would take $100 off of his bid. Deats says that he then consented with and authorized him to take $100 off of his bid. He says that he afterwards went and took $100 off of his bid, by which I understand the witness to mean that he went to Norcross, the owner, and agreed with him to do the whole job for $100 less than he had previously offered. Deats also says that he was present at, and heard, an interview between Dillon and Waite, the architect, when the job was about being completed. The architect made some reference to some work in the cellar, and to the cellar steps as not being in conformity to the specifications, when Dillon remarked that "you ought not to be too hard on me, for I took $100 off the bid to help the boy out"...