Ohio Crane Co. v. Hicks, 18165.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 110 Ohio St. 168,143 N.E. 388 |
| Docket Number | No. 18165.,18165. |
| Parties | OHIO CRANE CO. v. HICKS. |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1924 |
OHIO CRANE CO.
v.
HICKS.
No. 18165.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
April 15, 1924.
Error to Court of Appeals Crawford County.
Action by George B. Hicks against the Ohio Crane Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.-[By Editorial Staff].
This action below was by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, to recover 10 per cent. of the total cost of a building constructed by defendant in error for plaintiff in error. The plaintiff in error furnished all material, and paid for labor, which defendant in error agreed to furnish, and did. Defendant in error also furnished trucks, ropes, blocks, wrenches, erection tools, scaffolding, and all things incidental to the erection of steel work, brick work, wood work, and so forth.
The negotiations were in their inception verbal. Thereafter the plaintiff in error addressed a letter to defendant in error, of which the following is a copy:
‘The Ohio Crane Company.
‘Bucyrus, Ohio, August 10, 1916.
‘To George B. Hicks, South Charleston, Ohio.
‘To labor required in erecting the steel work, brick work and carpenter work on our new erecting shop 90'x200'.
‘Price-as verbally agreed upon-actual cost plus 10%.
‘It is understood that the company is to furnish all the materials used in the construction of this building and that the contractor is to furnish his necessary tools for carrying on this work.
‘The steel work is expected to arrive in Bucyrus by the latter part of August, and it is essential that the steel work be erected as soon as it arrives on the ground.
‘Acknowledged 8/12, 1916.
‘The Ohio Crane Company,
‘C. Michael, Purchasing Agent.’
To which the defendant in error sent the following reply:
‘Geo. B. Hicks, Contractor.
‘South Charleston, Ohio. August 14, 1916.
‘The Ohio Crane Co., Bucyrus, O.-Dear Sirs: Yours of the tenth inst. received, covering extent of work and contract price.
‘I will keep in close touch with the progress of your work, and will have the men and tools ready to place the steel when it arrives, and proceed with the work.
‘Awaiting your further orders, I beg to remain,
‘Very truly yours,
Geo. B. Hicks.'
The record discloses that the defendant in error erected the building to the satisfaction of the plaintiff in error; that the period consumed in the erection was approximately 90 days. The plaintiff in error paid the wages of the laborers furnished by defendant in error in the sum of $2,639.94, which included all labor performed upon the building except the personal labor of defendant in error and of his superintendent, Johnson; that defendant in error personally spent a few hours per week actually on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 2015AP2457
...Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 353, 678 N.E.2d 519, 526–27 (1997) (quoting Ohio Crane Co. v. Hicks, 110 Ohio St. 168, 143 N.E. 388, 389 (1924) (per curiam) ).10 We understand Becker's argument as encouraging us to respect Ohio's recognition that "[a] fundam......
-
Campus v. White Hat Mgmt., L. L.C., 2013–2050.
...Co., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs., 113 Ohio St.3d 226, 2007-Ohio-1687, 864 N.E.2d 68, ¶ 29, quoting Ohio Crane Co. v. Hicks, 110 Ohio St. 168, 172, 143 N.E. 388 (1924). {¶ 37} "It is not the responsibility or function of this court to rewrite the parties' contract in order to provide f......
-
In re Foster, Bankruptcy No. 09–63067.
...upon one of the parties thereto.’ ” Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, 78 Ohio St.3d at 362, 678 N.E.2d 519 (quoting Ohio Crane Co. v. Hicks, 110 Ohio St. 168, 172, 143 N.E. 388 (1924)). “A court will resort to extrinsic evidence in its effort to give effect to the parties' intentions only where ......
-
In re Deree, Bankruptcy No. 07-60347.
...of the parties thereto.'" Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, 78 Ohio St.3d at 362, 678 N.E.2d 519 (quoting Ohio Page 520 Crane Co. v. Hicks, 110 Ohio St. 168, 172, 143 N.E. 388 In this case, the language used in the first mortgage and second mortgage is clear and unambiguous. In both documents, t......