de Wolf v. Bonee

• Citation: 91 Conn. 712,101 A. 233
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 14 June 1917
• Parties: DE WOLF v. BONEE.

101 A. 233

91 Conn. 712

DE WOLF

v. BONEE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 14, 1917.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New London County; Charles B. Waller, Judge.

Action by Asahel R. De Wolf against Joseph Bonee. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. No error.

The action is to foreclose a mechanic's lien and for damages. On May 4, 1914, Alexander Hepburn, a carpenter and builder, submitted the following proposal to the defendant:

"Hartford, Conn., May 4, 1914. "Mr. Bonee: I agree to furnish all material and labor required to erect and complete the carpenter and mason work on your cottage at Sound View, Conn., for the sum of $1600.00.

"Alex Hepburn. 'This estimate includes painting two coats outside and inside for the first and second story.

"Alex Hepburn." Upon the same day the defendant accepted Hepburn's written proposal. This acceptance and proposal constituted the entire agreement as between the parties. No time was fixed upon for the payment of the contract price by the parties. When this agreement between Hepburn and the defendant was made, James D'Atro, a relative of the defendant, owned a lot of land adjoining the defendant's lot at Sound View. Shortly thereafter, D'Atro requested Hepburn to build a cottage on his lot similar in all respects to that which Hepburn had agreed to build for the defendant. During the construction of the D'Atro cottage, the plans were changed so that his contract price was $1,800. These contracts entered into by the defendant and D'Atro were entirely independent of and had no connection with each other. After making this contract, Hepburn contracted with the plaintiff for certain building materials which were to be delivered by the plaintiff at Sound View, and which were used in the construction of the cottages for the defendant and D'Atro. Between May 11, 1914, and the 22d day of June, 1914, the plaintiff furnished and delivered to Hepburn, on the premises of the defendant and D'Atro at Sound View, building materials for which Hepburn agreed to pay the plaintiff $1,928.44. No payment on this sum was made by Hepburn until July 17, 1914. Hepburn completed the defendant's cottage on July 6, 1914. Prior to this time, the defendant had paid to Hepburn on account of his contract $1,300, $800 of which was paid on June 20, 1914, and $500 of which was paid on some date subsequent to June 20, 1914. Both of these payments were made before the defendant's cottage was completed. The balance of $300 due on the defendant's contract was paid by him to Hepburn on July 17, 1914. The defendant had no knowledge or information that the plaintiff was furnishing materials for the construction of his cottage until the 6th day of August, 1914, and all the payments described in the foregoing paragraph were made by the defendant without notice of any kind to the plaintiff. Prior to the 6th day of August, 1914, the defendant paid Hepburn in good faith the sum of $1,600, the full contract price for the defendant's cottage. On July 17, 1914, Hepburn paid to the plaintiff the sum of $1,000, for which amount credit was given by the plaintiff to Hepburn on his account for materials furnished which were used by Hepburn in the construction of the defendant's cottage and the cottage of James D'Atro, and there then remained due on account thereof to the plaintiff the sum of $880. On the 22d day of August, 1914, the plaintiff gave the defendant written notice of his intention to claim a lien for the sum of $880. This sum represented the total balance due from Hepburn to the plaintiff for materials and services furnished for the construction of the cottage of the defendant and for the cottage of D'Atro. On August 22, 1914, at the time the plaintiff gave the defendant written notice of his intention to claim a lien, there was nothing due from the defendant to Hepburn. The certificate of lien filed by the plaintiff against the premises of the defendant states that the value of the materials and services furnished for the construction of the defendant's cottage amounts to the sum of $880. It did not appear in evidence as to just what materials were used in the construction of the defendant's cottage, other than that the plaintiff furnished materials to the value of $1,938.44, used in the construction of both the defendant's and D'Atro's cottages, and that materials were furnished to the value at least of $880, which were...