Venezia v. Town of Fairfield
| Decision Date | 06 April 1934 |
| Citation | 118 Conn. 325,172 A. 90 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | VENEZIA v. TOWN OF FAIRFIELD et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Patrick B O'Sullivan, Judge.
Action by Eugene J. Venezia, a subcontractor, against the Town of Fairfield and the Central Engineering & Construction Company principal contractor, to recover for extra services rendered in plastering a school building, pursuant to a claimed agreement with defendant contractor. From a judgment rendered for plaintiff after overruling a demurrer to a remonstrance against a state referee's report and overruling the remonstrance, defendants appeal.
No error.
David S. Day and John C. Thompson, both of Bridgeport, for appellants.
Jacob Y. Sachs, of New Haven, and Irvin M. Davis, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
This action is brought by the plaintiff, a subcontractor, who furnished material and labor under a general contract for the construction of a high school building in the defendant town. The action was brought by virtue of the provisions of section 5109 of the General Statutes (Cum. Supp. 1933, § 1113b) which provides that, with certain exceptions, upon the making of a contract by the state or any subdivision thereof for the construction or alteration of a public building, the officer or agent making the contract shall take from the contractor a bond for the performance of the contract and the payment of all materials and labor used in its execution, and that any person having a claim for materials or labor so used may file with the proper officer a statement of it which, if found correct, shall be paid by the officer or agent, reimbursement for the sums so spent to be a liability under the bond.
The assignments of error raise questions concerning facts found and omitted by the referee, and certain rulings upon evidence. From the finding of the referee, with such corrections as the appellants are entitled to, the following facts appear: About February 1, 1930, the defendant town of Fairfield contracted with the defendant Central Engineering & Construction Company, as general contractor, for the erection of a high school building known as the " Roger Ludlowe High School Addition." In October, 1930, the contractor sublet the plastering work to the plaintiff at the agreed price of $14.650. Before the plaintiff made his bid for the plastering to be done by him, the contractor submitted to him a plan and a copy of a set of specifications. The plan indicated a certain amount of ornamental plastering to be done under the contract. The specifications which the contractor gave to the plaintiff, upon which to estimate and fix his bid, provided that the ornamental plastering work on the ceiling, etc., should be " of stock patterns from the shops of Jacobson & Company, of New York." The plaintiff did not purchase the patterns from Jacobson & Co., but placed his order therefor with Hammill & Co., another concern in the same line of business. In a supplemental bulletin, the architect set forth that the patterns of other responsible plaster companies would be approved provided they were the same as those prepared by Jacobson & Co. No objection was made by the architect, who drew the plans and specifications and was in charge of the work for the town, to allowing Hammill & Co. to furnish the patterns, and such patterns were approved by him and by the contractor. In asking Hammill & Co. to give him a price for the necessary patterns, plaintiff gave them the plans and specifications given to him by the contractor. Having received from Hammill & Co. its price, the plaintiff used the same in fixing the contract price of $14.650. In addition to the plan prepared by the architect, Jacobson & Co. made certain shop drawings showing in detail the ornamental walls and ceiling work. Only one set of these detailed drawings existed. Neither the pink sheets nor the shop drawings provided by Jacobson & Co. were exhibited to the plaintiff by the contractor or architect previous to his bid for the work, and his bid was based upon the general plan and the specifications. A few weeks after the contract had been awarded to the plaintiff by the contractor and before work had been commenced thereunder, and after Hammill & Co. had quoted a price for furnishing the patterns as shown on the plan and specifications, the plaintiff, for the first time, saw the detail or shop drawings in the office of Hammill & Co. in the city of Worcester. They called his attention to them and stated to him that such drawings indicated a much more elaborate and ornamented ceiling than was indicated upon the plan and specifications which plaintiff had given to them, upon which to make a price for the patterns required, and informed him that they withdrew their offer. The plaintiff thereupon notified the contractor of the existence of the shop drawings and informed it that plaintiff's bid for the work would be withdrawn unless the contractor would agree to pay the additional cost of the patterns and the value of the extra labor required to install such additional work. As a result of this conversation, the contractor agreed to pay to the plaintiff the additional sum of $350, which was to be added to plaintiff's contract price of $14,650, and represented the further sum required by Hammill & Co. for the additional patterns shown on the shop drawings. The contractor also agreed to pay the plaintiff the costs of the extra labor which would be required as follows: That the contractor had or expected to have the contract for building another schoolhouse at New Bedford, and would give the plastering work for that job to the plaintiff, who could add to his bid for such plastering work the cost of the extra work to be done on the walls and ceiling of the Fairfield job. This offer was accepted by the plaintiff who proceeded to perform the work required. The principal contractor received the contract for constructing the New Bedford school but did not give the plastering work thereon to the plaintiff, neglecting and refusing to do so although the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform such work. The referee, after crediting the contractor with payments made to the plaintiff or on his behalf, and after various...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giannitti v. City of Stamford
...105 Conn. 482, 136 A. 95 (1927); Southern New England Ice Co. v. West Hartford, 114 Conn. 496, 159 A. 470 (1932); Venezia v. Fairfield, 118 Conn. 325, 333, 172 A. 90 (1934); see also 57 Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 679. The defendant does not cite and our research has not uncovered any case in which......
-
Cleary v. White's Estate.
...Interest is allowed as damages for the wrongful detention of money; Selleck v. French, 1 Conn. 32, 33, 6 Am.Dec. 185; Venezia v. Fairfield, 118 Conn. 325, 333, 172 A. 90; General Statutes, § 4731; and it ordinarily begins to run from the time when the money is due and payable. Loomis v. Gil......
-
Corte Co., Inc. v. County Com'n of McDowell County, 15515
...248, 150 P.2d 395 (1944); Hunt-Forbes Construction Co. v. City of Ashland, 265 Ky. 356, 96 S.W.2d 854 (1936); Venezia v. Town of Fairfield, 118 Conn. 325, 172 A. 90 (1934); State v. City of Milwaukee, 158 Wis. 564, 149 N.W. 579 (1914). See generally 56 Am.Jur.2d Municipal Corporations, Coun......
-
Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Feldmann
...The real question in each case is whether the detention of the money is or is not wrongful under the circumstances. Venezia v. Fairfield, 118 Conn. 325, 333, 172 A. 90; Capitol City Lumber Co. v. Sudarsky, 95 Conn. 336, 341, 111 A. 349. In Loomis v. Gillett, supra, an action brought to reco......