Siebert v. Leonard

• Decision Date: 13 April 1875
• Citation: 21 Minn. 442
• Parties: ELIAS SIEBERT <I>vs.</I> CHARLES LEONARD & others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

21 Minn. 442

ELIAS SIEBERTvs.

CHARLES LEONARD & others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 13, 1875.

The complaint sets forth a sealed contract between the parties, bearing date August 18, 1868, by which plaintiff agreed "to do or cause to be done all the excavation and masonry, including all brick and stone work, furnishing all material for the same, except cut stone, for the erection and completion of a three-story business house now about to be erected on Minnesota street, between Third and Fourth streets, in said city of St. Paul, for Messrs. J. A. & W. M. Stees, and in accordance with plans, specifications and details of the same, with such changes as are mentioned in

such specifications; * * the entire work to be done and laid up on or before the fifteenth of October next.

"In consideration whereof, the said Leonard & Sheire agree to pay unto the said Elias Siebert the sum of two thousand eight hundred and twenty dollars, in manner as follows: $200 when the excavation is completed; $300 when the basement and area walls are completed; $500 when the first story walls are completed; $500 when the second story walls are completed; $500 when the coping roofing is on; and the balance when the contract is completed."

The complaint then alleges that no plans or specifications were ever shown to plaintiff, and that by reason of the defendants' failing to furnish the same, the contract, "so far as it required said work to be done according to such plans and specifications, was practically abandoned, and as to that portion thereof modified, in that the plaintiff was to perform such work in such manner as the defendants should direct, and according to their orders; that plaintiff began the erection of the building under the immediate direction and supervision of the defendants, and furnished all the materials required by the contract, which materials were all of good quality, and were accepted and approved of by defendants; that plaintiff proceeded with the work according to defendants' directions, as they insisted that he should do, notwithstanding he repeatedly warned them that the walls, if erected according to such directions, would be insecure; that solely in consequence of being built conformably to such directions, and not in consequence of any fault or negligence of plaintiff, or of any defect in materials, the building was so defectively, insecurely and unsafely constructed, that when nearly completed, it fell to the ground; that by reason of such falling, the plaintiff was prevented from completing the building, although when it fell it would have required the labor of the force then employed by him upon it but one day to finish the same, which labor would have been of the value of $100 only; that defendants have paid plaintiff $1,851.70, in part payment for materials furnished and work

done as aforesaid; that after the falling of the building plaintiff demanded payment of $868.30, (being the unpaid balance of the entire contract price, less $100,) no part of which has been paid. This complaint was held good, as against a general demurrer, in 17 Minn. 433.

The answer denies the allegations of the complaint as to the abandonment or modification of the sealed contract, denies that the materials furnished by plaintiff were of good quality, or were accepted or approved by defendants, denies that they ever in any way directed the plaintiff in what manner to construct the building, or that plaintiff ever warned them that the walls, if constructed according to their instructions, would be insecure, and alleges that...