Noyes v. Bros

• Decision Date: 06 July 1906
• Citation: 98 Minn. 448,108 N.W. 839
• Parties: NOYES et al. v. BUTLER BROS. (two cases).
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

98 Minn. 448

108 N.W. 839

NOYES et al.

v.BUTLER BROS. (two cases).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 6, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; William Louis Kelly, Judge.

Action by Daniel R. Noyes and others, partners as Noyes Bros. & Cutler, against Butler Bros. Verdict for plaintiffs. Motions for a new trial, and for judgment for the full amount claimed notwithstanding the verdict, and motion by defendant for judgment for plaintiffs for a lesser amount. Motion for new trial granted, and the other motions denied, and both parties appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

As between a contractor for the construction of a building according to certain plans and specifications and his subcontractor, who furnishes a part of the material, reference may be made to the specifications, without adopting them as a whole; and, in the absence of an express agreement to that effect, it will not be inferred that the parties contemplated that all the provisions of the specifications should have application. Rule applied in this case, and held, that reference to the plans and specifications was for no other purpose than to determine the amount and the sizes of the glass to be furnished by the subcontractor, and appellants were not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The order granting a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence is sustained; it not being manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict. William W. Cutler, for plaintiffs.

How, Butler & Mitchell, for defendant.

LEWIS, J.

Defendant entered into a contract with the Board of Capitol Commissioners for the construction of the north wing and remodeling certain parts of the State Capitol at Bismarck, N. D., according to certain plans and specifications, which contained the following clause: ‘The contractor shall allow and include in his bid $5.00 per square foot for the art glass, which shall include the large circular transoms in House chamber and art glass back of speaker's desk; but the Capitol Board, with the architect, shall have the right to select and purchase the art glass.’ Upon application the plaintiffs submitted a bid for all of the glass to be used in the building in the following terms: ‘For immediate order we quote you as follows: All glass for addtn. to Capitol Bldg. at Bismarck, N. D., as per plans and specifications for the sum of $1,800.00 f. o. b. cars Bismarck, N. D.’ The bid was accepted in the following terms: ‘We hereby accept your proposal of June 1st, 1904, to supply all the glass of every kind and description required by the plans and specifications for the north wing of North Dakota Capitol at Bismarck, said plans and specifications prepared by Mr. M. E. Beebe, architect, of Fargo, N. D., for the net sum of $1,800 delivered f. o. b. cars Bismarck, N. D. It will be necessary for you to get the cutting sizes from Bardwell & Robinson of Minneapolis, who are preparing the sash and mill work for this building. * * * You are also to prepare and submit to the architect for his approval designs for the leaded and art glass required by plans and specifications.’ To which acceptance plaintiffs replied as follows: ‘Please accept our thanks for your favor of the 15th awarding us contract for furnishing all the glass for north wing of the North Dakota State Capitol of Bismarck for $1,800 delivered f. o. b. cars at Bismarck. We will write Bardwell & Robinson for cutting sizes at once, and will take up matter of lead glass with Architect M. E. Beebe at Fargo.’ Thereafter the Capitol Commissioners exercised the option contained in their contract with defendant and concluded to purchase the art glass from another house, and accordingly $1,320 (264 square feet at $5 per square foot) was deducted from the contract price, and defendant notified plaintiffs of such change. The real controversy in the...