School District No. 46 v. Lund

• Decision Date: 01 July 1893
• Citation: 51 Kan. 731,33 P. 595
• Parties: SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 46, IN LYON COUNTY, v. MARTIN LUND
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

33 P. 595

51 Kan. 731

SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 46, IN LYON COUNTY, v. MARTIN LUND

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 1, 1893

Error from Lyon District Court.

ON July 26, 1888, School District No. 46, Lyon county, having previously prepared specifications for a schoolhouse it desired to have built, and having submitted the same to Martin Lund, he made the following offer, which the district accepted:

"To School Board of District No. 46, Lyon County: I hereby agree to build and furnish all material for schoolhouse, as per specifications, for the sum of $ 935.

MARTIN LUND."

The specifications were treated as a part of the contract, and signed by the parties. Lund built a schoolhouse, which he considered finished according to the contract. Afterward the parties attempted to make a settlement, but they were wide apart. The school district paid Lund $ 312. He claimed that he strictly complied with his contract, and demanded the remaining $ 623. The school district took possession of the schoolhouse and started its school September 2, 1889. This action was brought August 26, 1889, against the contractor Martin Lund, and his sureties, B. J. Dunmire, Peter Doster and James Lynch. The petition set out the contract specifications, and bond, and declared on 21 breaches, one of which was alleged in these words: "The plaintiff has been kept out of the use of the house one year, to its damage $ 200." The answer and cross petition of Martin Lund contained two separate causes of action. The first was upon the express contract for the construction of the schoolhouse at the contract price. The second was upon an implied contract to pay him for the labor performed and the material which went into and was used in the building. Trial November 23, 1889, before the court with a jury. The jury returned a verdict for Lund for $ 235, and also returned the following findings of fact:

"Ques. When did the school district take possession of and commence to use the schoolhouse? Ans. September 2, 1889.

"Q. How much money had the district paid Lund when they took possession of the building? A. $ 312.

"Q. What was the building worth at the time of its completion? A $ 700.

"Q. Was the building constructed in substantial compliance with the specifications? A. No.

"Q. At the time this suit was brought, August 26, 1889, did the defendants B. J. Dunmire, Peter Doster and James Lynch owe the plaintiff school district anything by reason of having signed Lund's bond herein? A. Yes."

Lund filed a motion for a new trial December 23, 1889, and on January 11, 1890, withdrew the motion, the plaintiff asking the benefit of it, and asking for a new trial. The court, on the motion of Lund, rendered a judgment for $ 388. Before any witnesses were subpoenaed, the school district had offered to confess judgment for $ 300. The school district excepted, and brings the case here.

Judgment affirmed.

J. Jay Buck, and Lambert & Dickson, for plaintiff in error:

1. The jury allowed damages, and this verdict should be upheld. Stanton v. French, 91 Cal. 294.

2. Formerly, when two parties made a special contract they were held bound thereby. The law did not imply a contract where to do so the implication violated the very contract they had made. This rule was finally changed by two leading cases: Britton v. Turner, 6 N.H. 481; Hayward v. Leonard, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 181. The prevailing rule is against that laid down in Britton v. Turner, but this court has followed the New Hampshire case. See, also, B. & O. Rld. Co. v. Rathbone, 1 W.Va. 87.

3. Let it be kept in mind that in the case at bar each party was standing on the pleaded contract, insisting he had carried it out to the letter, and that the other had violated it; and the defendant below was not entitled to ask special finding No. 3, and no pleading justified its consideration by the court below. See Clark v. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co., 48 Kan. 662; A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Irwin, 35 id. 288, 289; Mays v. Foster, 26 id. 518. We discern nothing in School District v. Boyer, 46 Kan. 56, opposed to our views.

In Denton v. City of Atchison, 34 Kan. 441, this court says:

"A substantial performance, however, is still indispensable to a recovery; and a failure to carry out any material part of the contract will not amount to a substantial compliance."

4. This court has held, in Smith v. Beeler, 48 Kan. 672:

"When there is no conflict between a special finding of the jury and the general verdict, it is not error for the court to enter judgment on the general verdict." St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. Ritz, 33 Kan. 404, 408; Simpson v. Greeley, 8 id. 586.

The jury returned a general verdict for the defendant for $ 235. The court rendered judgment for $ 388. In this the court erred. The general verdict is not inconsistent with the special findings. True, the jury found the building was worth $ 700, and that plaintiff had paid $ 312. But the jury also found that the building was not constructed in substantial compliance with the specifications.

5. We had a right to just such a building as we had contracted for. The schoolhouse, if completed according to contract, would probably have been worth $ 1,200. But the jury doubtless allowed us for one year loss of time. They, in effect, found that the building should have been worth $ 1,088, if completed according to contract, assuming that they allowed us nothing for one year's use.

There was no finding as to our damages, and we had pleaded specific damages of $ 1,335, and had paid $ 312, and asked judgment for $ 1,200. If our damages had been found, the court could have told what we owed; without such finding, the court could not. See Water Co. v. City of Winfield, decided by this court March 11, 1893 [ante, p. 104].

Mills, Smith & Hobbs, for defendant in error:

The answer and cross petition of Martin Lund, the defendant in the court below, contained two separate causes of action against the plaintiff. The first was upon the express contract for the construction of the schoolhouse at the contract price. The second was upon an implied contract to pay Lund for the labor and material which went into and were used in the building. The second cause of action set out in the answer of Lund was in the common-law form upon the common counts. This form of pleading has been approved by this court. Meagher v. Morgan, 3 Kan. 372; Clark v. Fensky, 3 id. 389. It has also been approved by the courts in most of the code states. Pom. Rem., § 542, and note.

The argument of the plaintiff in error is, that while the jury found that the building was worth $ 700 to the school district, this amount ought not to be the measure of the defendant's recovery, for the reason that the district was kept out of the use of the schoolhouse for some time. The proof shows, however, that during the whole time...