Wade v. Haycock
| Decision Date | 01 January 1855 |
| Citation | 25 Pa. 382 |
| Parties | Wade versus Haycock. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Cook, for plaintiff in error.—He was bound to construct the work in a skilful manner: 8 Harris 133; Jones on Bail. 91; 2 Kent's Com. 458; Sto. on Bail. 281. It was an entire contract, and must be fully completed before he can claim compensation: 5 W. & Ser. 382; 2 Kent's Com. 667-8; 2 P. R. 454; 3 Harris 195; Par. on Con. 386; 2 Jones 236.
If Haycock knew of the imperfections in calculations, &c., and did not communicate it, it was a fraud: 1 Bouv. Inst. 301; Bright. Eq. Jur. 73; 5 Harris 54; 1 Bouv. Inst. 228; 12 Ser. & R. 432; 2 Par. on Con. 267.
On the question of damages were cited 1 Harris 246; 2 Par. on Con. 456; 18 Verm. Rep. 620; 3 W. & Ser. 270.
Cowan, for defendant in error.
After a careful examination of this case, we are of opinion that it is free from error.
The principles of law applicable to the case were clearly and correctly stated to the jury by the learned judge who presided at the trial, and were substantially as follows: —
1. Where one contracts to do all the millwright work necessary in the construction of a grist-mill, he is bound to do it in a workmanlike manner, so that it will answer the purpose for which it is intended.
2. If the millwright, after doing part of the work under the contract, refuses or neglects to complete it, he can recover nothing for part performance; but if the work is all done, but part of it defective in the execution, which defect can be cured by the substitution of other machinery or better work, there may be a recovery of the contract price; or in the absence of an express contract, what the work is reasonably worth, deducting the actual damages sustained on account of the defective performance.
3. The measure of damages would be the expense of the new work, and the profits of the mill for such time as it was necessarily stopped from running whilst the alterations were being made.
4. Where that part of the work complained of was constructed under directions given by the owner of the mill, the workman is not responsible if the defect was occasioned by following the directions so given.
5. If the employee knowingly and purposely makes the work defective, it is such mala fides on his part that he can recover nothing for any of the work done under the contract.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagner v. Edison Electric Illuminating Company
... ... contract in its entirety. [ Note to Cutter v. Powell, 2 ... Smith's Leading Cas. (9 Ed.), 1228; Sickels v ... Pattison, 14 Wend. 257; Wade v. Haycock, 25 Pa ... 382.] Where benefits accrue, as they did in this case, as the ... work progressed, it may be well presumed that the parties ... ...
-
Boyden v. United Mercury Mines Co.
...C. A. 354; Danville Bridge Co. v. Pomroy, 15 Pa. 151; Pauly Jail Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Hemphill County, 62 F. 698, 10 C. C. A. 595; Wade v. Haycock, 25 Pa. 382; Schaefer v. Gildea, 3 Colo. 15.) Substantial performance of any contract is sufficient, and this is particularly true where the cont......
-
Elderkin v. Gaster
... ... 109 (C.P.1958); Harrison v. Heagy, 81 ... Dauph. 7 (C.P.1963); McKeever v. Mercaldo, 3 Pa.Dist. & ... Co.R.2d 188 (Mont.C.P.1963). See also Wade v. Haycock, 25 Pa ... 382 (1855) ... [13] The cases generally note that reasonable ... workmanship is not the equivalent of building perfection, ... ...
-
American Surety Co. v. San Antonio Loan & Trust Co.
...N. Y. 62, 7 Am. Rep. 415. The cases of Weis v. Devlin, 67 Tex. 507, 3 S. W. 726, 60 Am. Rep. 38, Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 Ill. 19, Wade v. Haycock, 25 Pa. 382, and Murphy v. Liberty Nat. Bank, 184 Pa. 208, 39 Atl. 147, cited by appellants, are ruled by this principle, and are inapplicable t......