Warner Corporation v. Magazine Realty Co., No. 4584.
| Docket Nº | No. 4584. |
| Citation | 255 A.2d 479 |
| Case Date | July 17, 1969 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
Page 479
v.
MAGAZINE REALTY CO., Inc., a corporation, Appellee.
Page 480
Michael F. Keogh and John F. Costello, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Bruce Magazine, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before KELLY, FICKLING and KERN, Associate Judges.
FICKLING, Associate Judge:
Appellant instituted this action below alleging that appellee was indebted to it for labor and materials appellant used for repairs on certain air conditioners in appellee's apartment buildings. After appellant rested its case, the trial court, sitting without a jury, granted appellee's motion for a finding in its favor without stating any reasons for its action.
Appellee's former property manager, Richard Rogers, testified that, acting as manager of appellee's apartments, he telephoned appellant and requested repairs on certain air conditioners in the apartments. Rogers also testified that he had noticed appellant's employees working on the air conditioners in question but could not say what work was done on them. Cost was never discussed, and Rogers relied upon the fair and reasonable nature of past billings. When appellant's bill was submitted, Rogers authorized its payment.
Appellant's credit manager testified from the work records of the billing department that, pursuant to the call from Rogers, work had been performed on the air conditioners in five of appellee's apartment units. The bill rendered to appellee, a copy of which was admitted into evidence, specified the apartments in which the work had been performed, the parts used and their cost, and the charge for labor.
Appellant contends that it made out a prima facie case and that it was error to grant appellee's motion for a finding in its favor. It is appellee's position that appellant failed to make out a prima facie case and, even if such a showing was made, the trial court properly found for appellee on the merits pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions.1 We reverse for the following reasons.
Appellant's witness established that appellant had been requested to make the repairs by appellee's property manager, who, having the authority to order repairs, thereby bound appellee by his action. Lo Medico v. Simkowitz, D.C.Mun.App., 158 A.2d 681 (1960). It is fundamental that in the absence of circumstances indicating otherwise, one who orders work done impliedly promises to pay for it. Dodge's Market, Inc. v. Turner, D.C.Mun.App., 67 A.2d 526 (1949).
Appellant's credit manager testified as to the number of hours its employees had worked in making the repairs, the hourly rate paid the employees, and the hourly rate charged appellee for labor. The reasonableness of the hourly rate charges was undisputed. Rogers partially corroborated this testimony in that he saw appellant's employees working several days on the air conditioners in question.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant,2 it made a prima facie showing of a contract between
Page 481
it and appellee, of appellant's performance of that contract, of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fireison v. Pearson, No. 84-157.
...requires withholding adjudication on the merits until both sides have presented their evidence." Warner Corp. v. Magazine Realty Co., 255 A.2d 479, 481 (D.C. 1969); Darden v. Capitol Cab Cooperative Association, 154 A.2d 352, 354 (D.C. The trial court based its dismissal on two alternative ......
-
Fireison v. Pearson, No. 84-157.
...requires withholding adjudication on the merits until both sides have presented their evidence." Warner Corp. v. Magazine Realty Co., 255 A.2d 479, 481 (D.C. 1969); Darden v. Capitol Cab Cooperative Association, 154 A.2d 352, 354 (D.C. 1959). This is so because a "judgment rendered on all t......
-
Renovest Co. v. Hodges Development Corp., No. 89-559
...rules of many States. See, e.g., Teodonno v. Bachman, 158 Colo. 1, 4, 404 P.2d 284, 285 (1965); Warner Corporation v. Magazine Realty Co., 255 A.2d 479, 481 (D.C.1969); Pichulik v. Air Conditioning & Heating Service Co., 123 Ga.App. 195, 196-97, 180 S.E.2d 286, 288 (1971); Grieser v. Haynes......
-
Bay Gen. Industries, Inc. v. Johnson, No. 11894.
...391 A.2d 1374 (1978); Keefer v. Keefer & Johnson, Inc., D.C.App., 361 A.2d 172 (1976); Warner Corp. v. Magazine Realty Co., D.C.App., 255 A.2d 479 Under Rule 41(b), the trial court may not dismiss the action unless "upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief." On ......
-
Fireison v. Pearson, No. 84-157.
...requires withholding adjudication on the merits until both sides have presented their evidence." Warner Corp. v. Magazine Realty Co., 255 A.2d 479, 481 (D.C. 1969); Darden v. Capitol Cab Cooperative Association, 154 A.2d 352, 354 (D.C. The trial court based its dismissal on two alternative ......
-
Fireison v. Pearson, No. 84-157.
...requires withholding adjudication on the merits until both sides have presented their evidence." Warner Corp. v. Magazine Realty Co., 255 A.2d 479, 481 (D.C. 1969); Darden v. Capitol Cab Cooperative Association, 154 A.2d 352, 354 (D.C. 1959). This is so because a "judgment rendered on all t......
-
Renovest Co. v. Hodges Development Corp., No. 89-559
...rules of many States. See, e.g., Teodonno v. Bachman, 158 Colo. 1, 4, 404 P.2d 284, 285 (1965); Warner Corporation v. Magazine Realty Co., 255 A.2d 479, 481 (D.C.1969); Pichulik v. Air Conditioning & Heating Service Co., 123 Ga.App. 195, 196-97, 180 S.E.2d 286, 288 (1971); Grieser v. Haynes......
-
Bay Gen. Industries, Inc. v. Johnson, No. 11894.
...391 A.2d 1374 (1978); Keefer v. Keefer & Johnson, Inc., D.C.App., 361 A.2d 172 (1976); Warner Corp. v. Magazine Realty Co., D.C.App., 255 A.2d 479 Under Rule 41(b), the trial court may not dismiss the action unless "upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief." On ......