Presby v. Bethlehem Village Dist.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-338,79-338
• Citation: Presby v. Bethlehem Village Dist., 416 A.2d 1382, 120 N.H. 493 (N.H. 1980)
• Parties: William PRESBY v. BETHLEHEM VILLAGE DISTRICT et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 1382

416 A.2d 1382

120 N.H. 493

William PRESBY v.BETHLEHEM VILLAGE DISTRICT et al.

No. 79-338.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

June 25, 1980.

David B. Shepatin, Littleton, by brief and orally, for plaintiff.

John M. A. Rolli, Littleton, by brief and orally, for defendant.

GRIMES, Chief Judge.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant liable for work performed by the plaintiff in the construction of a septic system upon the property of a village resident.Finding no error, we affirm.

The plaintiff, a contractor, seeks recovery for labor and materials furnished for a septic system that he installed at the home of one Smith, a resident of the Bethlehem Village District, defendant herein.The Bethlehem Village District is an area in the town of Bethlehem which is served by a sewer system.Some residences within the district are not connected to the sewer but have their own septic systems.Such properties, however, are taxed at the same rate as other properties within the district that are connected to the sewer; thus owners of these properties pay taxes that go in part for a service they do not receive.

The Smiths live within the district but are not connected to the sewer.The plaintiff had originally performed septic system work for Smith in 1973.It appears that Smith's system had never functioned adequately; he made repeated requests of the plaintiff to correct the system, culminating in a letter dated April 12, 1977, urging Mr. Presby to repair it.The evidence revealed that sometime in 1975, Smith had learned from Howard Stone, a district commissioner, that the district would pay for septic system work performed upon the property of its residents that was not connected to the district sewer system.Smith accordingly advised Presby that upon completion of the work he need only submit the bill to the district for payment.At about the same time, the plaintiff had a conversation with Commissioner Stone regarding the district's obligation to pay for septic system work contemplated by Presby at the home of one MacLean, another district resident.Stone again confirmed that the district would pay for such jobs except for hand labor.Following his contacts with Stone and Smith, the plaintiff proceeded to install a septic system at the Smith home in July 1977 while the Smiths were away on vacation.Additional work was performed in August and the system has performed satisfactorily since.

In October 1977, the plaintiff's son submitted bills to the district commissioners for both the Smith and MacLean jobs.At that time, the commissioners indicated that both bills would be paid in a few weeks.In mid-November and again in December, the commissioners assured the plaintiff that he would be paid for the Smith job.Finally, in February 1978, the commissioners paid the MacLean bill but refused to pay for the work performed at the Smith home on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to first obtain their approval for the work.The plaintiff brought suit against both Smith and the district to determine their respective obligations.

On May 24, 1979, trial was had before Johnson, J., who found that the district was obligated to pay for the cost of installing septic systems for property owners whose property was not connected to the district sewer system.Accordingly, it rendered judgment for the plaintiff against the district in the amount of $4,121 and against the Smiths for $225.The defendant's exceptions were reserved and transferred to this court.The Smiths take no appeal from that portion of the court's decree against them.

The district seeks to overturn the outcome below by arguing that absent proof of either an express or an oral contract between the plaintiff and the district or Smith, Presby was not entitled to recover for the work performed.SeeManchester Gas Co. v. Griffin Construction Co., 119 N.H. 179, 399 A.2d 970(1979).We think, however, that the defendant misses a crucial point.The trial court allowed the plaintiff to recover not on the basis of an express contract but rather, on the basis of an agreement implied at law.

Contracts implied at law, commonly called quasi-contracts, "are 'legal obligations' arising, without reference to the...