Warnecke v. MacDonald Construction Company
| Decision Date | 25 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 17283.,17283. |
| Citation | 323 F.2d 715 |
| Parties | George W. WARNECKE, Appellant, v. MacDONALD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, and Tunnicliff Construction Company, an Iowa corporation, a joint venture, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William J. Allingham, New York City, made argument for the appellant and Melber Chambers, New York City, and George S. Roudebush, of Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo., were with him on the brief.
William C. Dale, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., made argument for the appellees and Robert T. Hensley, of Biggs, Hensley, Curtis & Biggs, St. Louis, Mo., was with him on the brief.
Before VOGEL, MATTHES and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges.
This diversity action, tried without a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $43,000 and interest. Defendant has appealed, making no assertion that a mistake of law has been committed, but rather contending, in effect, that the trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous.
By a written contract, plaintiffs had agreed to construct a sewage treatment plant, sewers and appurtenances in and upon the land of defendant at or near Owego, New York. Plaintiffs' trial theory was that during the course of construction of the project they were required to perform certain additional and extra work not a part of the original contract, for which defendant had promised and agreed to pay. Defendant's trial version was that the alleged extra or additional work was covered by and included in the original contract and that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover any amount in excess of the contract price of $250,000 which concededly had been fully paid.
Since the trial court adequately summarized the material evidence in its opinion reported at 212 F.Supp. 595 (1963), a further discussion of the facts and circumstances will serve no beneficial purpose. The court's opinion clearly reveals that it was confronted in part with conflicting oral testimony, and chose to credit plaintiffs' witnesses and to discredit defendant's testimony.
In the posture of this case, on appeal defendant must demonstrate that the findings of the lower court were clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ. P.; United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 70 S.Ct. 177, 94 L.Ed. 150 (1949); Mothner v. Ozark Real Estate Company, 8 Cir., 300 F.2d 617, 620 (1962); Arkansas Valley...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byron v. Gerring Industries, Inc.
...362 F.2d 386, 387 (8th Cir.1966); Montgomery Ward and Company v. Steele, 352 F.2d 822, 826 (8th Cir.1965); Warnecke v. McDonald Construction Co., 323 F.2d 715, 716 (8th Cir.1963). The burden assumed by the party attempting to show such mistake is especially strong where, as in this instance......
-
Pickens-Bond Const. Co. v. United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 690
...See generally United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 788, 92 L.Ed. 1147 (1948); Warnecke v. MacDonald Construction Co., 323 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1963). b. Inducement, Coercion and The Union erroneously contends that the trial court erred in determining that certain ......
-
Joseph A. Bass Company v. United States
...that a heavy burden is cast upon the party who seeks to set aside findings of fact of the trial court. Warnecke v. MacDonald Construction Company, 323 F.2d 715, 716 (8 Cir. 1963). Whether there was an implied warranty of fitness, as contended by appellant, or whether the quality of the conc......
-
Friedman v. Fordyce Concrete, Inc.
...in the findings of the trial court. Joseph A. Bass Company v. United States, 340 F.2d 842 (8 Cir. 1965); Warnecke v. MacDonald Construction Co., 323 F.2d 715, 716 (8 Cir. 1963); Montgomery Ward & Company v. Steele, 352 F.2d 822, 830 (8 Cir. We have carefully examined the evidence in light o......