Town of Holbrook v. Girand
Decision Date | 27 June 1938 |
Docket Number | Civil 3973 |
Citation | 80 P.2d 695,52 Ariz. 291 |
Parties | TOWN OF HOLBROOK, Navajo County, Arizona, Appellant, v. JAMES B. GIRAND, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Navajo. Levi S. Udall, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. W E. Ferguson, for Appellant.
Mr. H S. McCluskey and Mr. Guy Axline, for Appellee.
This is an action by James B. Girand, hereinafter called plaintiff, against the town of Holbrook, a municipal corporation hereinafter called defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $1,200, and defendant appealed.
The complaint concluded with the statement that demand had been made for compensation, as provided by the agreement, but that no payment had been made, and judgment was prayed for in the sum of $2,000.
Defendant set up, as a plea in bar, that sections 38 and 39 of ordinance number one of the Town of Holbrook read as follows:
and that no contract was ever entered into by defendant with plaintiff in the manner set forth in said ordinance. It then answered, denying that it made any agreement of the nature set up by plaintiff, and alleging that he was merely employed by it to do certain preliminary work, for which he had been paid the agreed price. The plea in bar was denied, and the case then proceeded to trial on its merits before the court without a jury. Many letters and telegrams were introduced and much evidence was offered regarding the amount and value of the services. The theory of counsel for the defendant at all times was that the action was upon an express contract; that the evidence showed clearly that if any such contract did exist, it was entered into in a manner contrary to that set forth in section 38, supra, and that no recovery could, therefore, be had.
The complaint unquestionably declared upon an express contract, but during the trial of the case the record shows there was considerable doubt in the minds of counsel for plaintiff and of the trial court as to whether the action should be tried as one upon contract or quantum meruit. The judgment, when considered in the light of the questions asked by the trial judge during the trial, leads decidedly to the conclusion that it was based upon a quantum meruit, and not upon the express contract set up by plaintiff.
Assuming for the sake of the argument, that the various documents and oral evidence show that defendant did agree to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tillberg v. Kearny Tp.
...Construction Co. v. City of Lawrence, 297 Mass. 513, 9 N.E.2d 550, 111 A.L.R. 699 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1937); Town of Holbrook v. Girand, 52 Ariz. 291, 80 P.2d 695, 118 A.L.R. 1203 (Sup.Ct.1938); State ex rel. Bayer v. Funk, 105 Or. 134, 199 P. 592, 209 P. 113, 25 A.L.R. 625 (Sup.Ct.1922); Bell v. K......
-
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. Corbin
...149 Ariz. 373, 718 P.2d 1026 (App.1986); Maucher v. City of Eloy, 145 Ariz. 335, 701 P.2d 593 (App.1985). But see Town of Holbrook v. Girand, 52 Ariz. 291, 80 P.2d 695 (1938); Yuma County v. Hanneman, 42 Ariz. 561, 28 P.2d 622 (1934); County of Greenlee v. Webster, 30 Ariz. 245, 246 P. 543 ......
-
Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney
...many jurisdictions, does not impose a blanket prohibition on the recovery of such damages. Id.; see also Town of Holbrook v. Girand, 52 Ariz. 291, 297, 80 P.2d 695, 698 (1938) (holding engineer entitled to recover quantum meruit damages for services rendered under illegal municipal contract......
-
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
...by the legislature. Failure to do so precludes enforcement of the contract according to its terms. Town of Holbrook v. Girand, 52 Ariz. 291, 296, 80 P.2d 695, 697-98 (1938). By the same token, the county board of supervisors may exercise no powers except those specifically granted by statut......