Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co., No. 7963
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
| Writing for the Court | PORTER |
| Citation | 74 Idaho 374,262 P.2d 1003 |
| Docket Number | No. 7963 |
| Decision Date | 04 November 1953 |
| Parties | RINO v. STATEWIDE PLUMBING & HEATING CO., Inc. |
Page 1003
v.
STATEWIDE PLUMBING & HEATING CO., Inc.
[74 Idaho 375]
Page 1004
O. R. Baum, Ruby Y. Brown, R. M. Whittier, Zener & Peterson, Pocatello, for appellant.Louis F. Racine, Jr. and Ben W. Davis, Pocatello, for respondent.
[74 Idaho 376] PORTER, Chief Justice.
In May, 1947, respondent was having constructed a building in the City of Pocatello. The structure was a warehouse with offices and was 80 feet wide and 120 feet long. Respondent entered into an oral contract with appellant whereby appellant agreed to design, furnish and install a proper and adequate heating system in said building. The work of installing the heating system was completed by appellant in the month of November, 1947.
The heating plant installed by appellant consisted in a general way of a boiler, oil burner, tanks, pipes, ducts, blowers and other installations incident thereto. The heating system as installed did not work satisfactorily and periodically exploded, throwing smoke and soot on the walls of the building and on the merchandise of respondent. Upon the complaints of respondent, appellant made changes from time to time in such heating plant but such changes did not remedy the inadequacy of the heat furnished or cause the system to work satisfactorily. Finally, appellant refused to make further repairs or alterations and respondent installed a coal burning plant in the year 1950, at a cost of $2,475.
Respondent brought this action in April, 1951, to recover damages for breach of contract and alleged in his amended complaint that the heating system as installed by appellant was inadequate and insufficient and faulty of design and construction. He further alleged he had paid $4,278.44 on the contract price of $5,991.57; had paid out $3,315.08 in an effort to correct the faulty heating plant; and had suffered a loss of $1,500 by damage to his merchandise. He prayed judgment for the total of these amounts. Appellant by its answer alleged that the failure of the heating system to function properly was caused by the failure and refusal of respondent, acting through his general contractor, to build the smoke-stack to the proper and necessary height. By may of cross-complaint appellant admitted that respondent had paid the sum of $4,278.44 and alleged that there was a balance due on the contract of $1,888.72 for which sum appellant prayed judgment.
[74 Idaho 377] Upon the trial of the cause the jury returned a verdict in favor of respondent in the sum of $2,500 to which verdict it added the following words, 'and possession of heating equipment in Mr. Rino's building on 1800 Block North Main belongs to Mr. Rino.' Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict. From such judgment appellant has appealed to this court.
By Assignment of Error No. 1, appellant alleges that the court erred in refusing to grant its motion for nonsuit. By Assignment of Error No. 2, appellant alleges that the court erred in refusing to grant its motion for directed verdict. Both these motions were based upon the theory that respondent had failed to show that the improper and inadequate operation of the heating system was due to faulty design, construction and installation by appellant; and on the contrary, that the evidence conclusively showed that such improper and inadequate operation was due to the inadequacy of the smoke-stack erected by respondent.
It is not denied that the heating system failed to function properly and adequately. Testimony as to the cause for such failure was introduced in detail. On substantial though conflicting evidence, the jury found against the contentions of appellant. It is well established that we will not disturb the findings of the jury under such circumstances....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cheney v. Palos Verdes Inv. Corp., No. 14003
...the amount actually paid by the owner and the reasonable value of the equipment received. See Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co., 74 Idaho 374, 262 P.2d 1003 Finally, in cases involving the transfer of real property the measure of damages to which a vendor is entitled upon a buyer's d......
-
Hodge v. Borden, No. 9635
...it became the duty of the trial court to give proper instructions thereon. I.R.C.P. 51. See Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co., 74 Idaho 374, 262 P.2d 1003 (1953); Investors' Mortg. Sec. Co. v. Strauss & Co., 50 Idaho 562, 298 P. 678 The discussions herein and views expressed dispose ......
-
Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co., HOBBS-SESACK
...Supply Co. of Arizona v. Swift & Co., 9 Cir., 277 F.2d 710, 712 (refrigeration installation); Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co., 74 Idaho 374, 262 P.2d 1003 1005 (heating system); Crystal Recreation v. Seattle Ass'n of Credit Men, 34 Wash.2d 553, 209 P.2d 358, 362 (restaurant fixture......
-
State v. Nesbitt, No. 8458
...incorporating the court's views, on the matter attempted to be covered by the request. Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co., 74 Idaho 374, 379, 262 P.2d 1003, and authorities therein Lastly, appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of the jury, and assi......
-
Cheney v. Palos Verdes Inv. Corp., No. 14003
...the amount actually paid by the owner and the reasonable value of the equipment received. See Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co., 74 Idaho 374, 262 P.2d 1003 Finally, in cases involving the transfer of real property the measure of damages to which a vendor is entitled upon a buyer's d......
-
Hodge v. Borden, No. 9635
...it became the duty of the trial court to give proper instructions thereon. I.R.C.P. 51. See Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co., 74 Idaho 374, 262 P.2d 1003 (1953); Investors' Mortg. Sec. Co. v. Strauss & Co., 50 Idaho 562, 298 P. 678 The discussions herein and views expressed dispose ......
-
Aced v. Hobbs-Sesack Plumbing Co., HOBBS-SESACK
...Supply Co. of Arizona v. Swift & Co., 9 Cir., 277 F.2d 710, 712 (refrigeration installation); Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co., 74 Idaho 374, 262 P.2d 1003 1005 (heating system); Crystal Recreation v. Seattle Ass'n of Credit Men, 34 Wash.2d 553, 209 P.2d 358, 362 (restaurant fixture......
-
State v. Nesbitt, No. 8458
...incorporating the court's views, on the matter attempted to be covered by the request. Rino v. Statewide Plumbing & Heating Co., 74 Idaho 374, 379, 262 P.2d 1003, and authorities therein Lastly, appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of the jury, and assi......