Parrott Bros. Co. v. Ogden City

• Citation: 167 P. 807,50 Utah 512
• Decision Date: 27 June 1917
• Docket Number: 3045
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: PARROTT BROS. CO. v. OGDEN CITY

167 P. 807

50 Utah 512

PARROTT BROS. CO. v. OGDEN CITY

No. 3045

Supreme Court of Utah

June 27, 1917

Rehearing denied October 5, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Second District; Hon. J. A. Howell Judge.

Suit by Parrott Bros. Company, a corporation, against Ogden City, a municipal corporation.

Judgment for plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals.

CAUSE REMANDED with instructions to amend conclusions of law and judgment.

C. R Hollingsworth and Wade M. Johnson for appellant.

E. T Hulaniski and J. C. Littlefield for respondent.

CORFMAN, J. FRICK, C. J., and McCARTY and THURMAN, JJ., concur. GIDEON, J., being disqualified, took no part.

OPINION

CORFMAN, J.

Plaintiff brought suit in the district court of Weber County to recover of the defendant $ 1,775.78 on a verified claim for work and materials alleged to have been furnished in the construction of street pavement under contract. Trial was had before the court without a jury, whereupon the court, after hearing the testimony, made its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rendered judgment against the defendant in plaintiff's favor for the sum of $ 671.58, together with interest and costs of suit. Plaintiff appeals.

The appellant assails the conclusions of law and the judgment of the trial court upon the ground that they were not predicated upon the court's findings of fact; and this question is the only one raised on the appeal and now properly before this court for determination.

The findings in question, so far as material here, are as follows:

"That this plaintiff assumed the obligations and liabilities of said contract, relying upon the stipulations of said contract that the above work provided for therein and the above material required to be furnished, as therein provided, was in fact to be done and furnished and paid for by the defendant, and said defendant knew that this plaintiff entered upon said contract and agreed to do the said work and furnish the material therein provided in reliance upon the terms and provisions thereof, hereinbefore mentioned; that after said plaintiff had entered upon said work the defendant refused to permit plaintiff to construct said 50 cubic yards of concrete waterways, and to furnish and put in place said material above mentioned, or any portion thereof, and thereby deprived plaintiff of the profits, which would have amounted to the sum of $ 880, accruing, or which would have accrued to it; from doing said work and furnishing said material, to its damage in the sum of $ 880, no part of which has been paid.

"That the said contract, with specifications thereto attached and made a part thereof, provided that all contraction and expansion joints should be filled with asphaltum cement. That after entering upon said work, plaintiff was, by the defendant, directed and required to and did, in lieu of the asphaltum cement for said contraction and...