Wilkins v. Sublette
| Decision Date | 01 July 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,695 - (126) |
| Parties | CHARLES WILKINS v. ANNA B. SUBLETTE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
July 14, 1910, On Reargument
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $720.24 on a contract for labor and materials. The case was tried before Holt, J., who found that defendant George W. Sublette was entitled to be dismissed with his costs and that plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $630.15 from defendant Anna B. Sublette. From an order denying her motion for a new trial, she appealed. Affirmed.
Evidence -- findings.
Evidence considered, and held to justify findings.
Evidence -- wife's account in husband's name.
In an action against husband and wife upon an account for which it appears the wife alone is liable, an account kept in the husband's name in a daybook may be received in evidence.
Evidence -- husband examined as adverse party.
In such action, the wife having in her answer admitted liability except as to amount, she is not prejudiced by the cross-examination of her husband as an adverse party concerning the financial transactions between the husband and wife.
Alexander McCune and H. E. Fryberger, for appellant.
Douglas A. Fiske and A. E. Helmick, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought this action against Anna B. and George W. Sublette husband and wife, to recover a balance claimed by him for furnishing and installing a heating plant, of the reasonable value of $767.59, which was also alleged as the agreed price. Separate answers were interposed, the husband's a general denial. The wife admitted the construction of the heating plant in her dwelling, but alleged a contract price therefor of $508, and, further, that plaintiff was also under contract to do the plumbing of the house for $425; that plaintiff only partially performed each contract, but had done and furnished extra work and materials of the value of $20.95, and had been paid $500. The answer then set out the omissions claimed, and, finally, alleged damages by reason of those omissions and faulty work in excess of any balance due upon the contracts. Upon the trial it appeared that the defendant Mrs. Sublette had given a contract to one Burgesson for the installation of the heating plant. The contractor defaulted, and the plaintiff, who had the contract for the plumbing of the house, was asked to complete the heating plant. The defendants claimed that plaintiff assumed Burgesson's contract, including the price, $508. The plaintiff insisted he only agreed to install the plant, thus completing Burgesson's contract, but without any agreement as to the price, and upon the trial elected to recover the reasonable value.
The case was tried without a jury, and findings made in favor of the plaintiff, and against defendant Anna B. Sublette. No cause of action was found against her husband. There was a sharp dispute in the evidence as to the terms upon which plaintiff undertook the installation of the heating plant. The court found there was no agreement as to the price, and that the reasonable value of the labor and material was $700. The defendant had paid $500 on account of both the plumbing and heating, and the court found the amount applied upon the plumbing contract, and ordered judgment for $630.15 as the balance due for the heating plant. The defendant moved for amended and additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial