Young v. Jeffreys

• Decision Date: 30 June 1839
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: ISHAM YOUNG v. WILLIAM JEFFREYS AND SAMUEL HARRIS.

20 N.C. 357

ISHAM YOUNG

v.WILLIAM JEFFREYS AND SAMUEL HARRIS.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

JUNE TERM, 1839

Construction of Contract.

1. Where a subscription was raised for building a house of worship for a religious society, and upon the letting of the building at auction by certain commissioners appointed for the purpose, the defendants, who were not shown to have any other concern with the transaction, declared that if or when the work was done according to certain written specifications, and accepted by the commissioners, they would pay the sum at which the building should be bid off, and the plaintiff became the contractor and executed the work, but it was rejected by the commissioners upon the ground that it was not executed according to the specifications in four particulars, in two of which, however, it was shown that an alteration had been made with the assent of the defendants: It was held, that the alteration in the building, with the assent of the defendants, modified the contract to the extent of that assent, but left it subsisting as to the other particulars; and that as to them the acceptance of the work by the commissioners was an essential term of the defendant's engagement, without

which the plaintiff could not recover; and, it was held further, that the plaintiff could not recover upon the common count for work and labor done.

2. Whether the plaintiff might not obtain compensation in some forum, in case the acceptance by the commissioners was rendered impossible by accident, or may not be entitled to redress in some form if that acceptance has been withheld maliciously or by fraudulent combination, Quere?

3. The effect of a contract is a question of law. Where a contract is wholly in writing and the intention of the framers is by law to be collected from the document itself, there the entire construction of the contract—that is, the ascertainment of the intention of the parties, as well as the effect of that intention—is a pure question of law, and the whole office of the jury is to pass on the alleged written agreement. Where the contract is by parol, the terms of the agreement are, of course, a matter of fact; and if those terms be obscure or equivocal, or are susceptible of explanation from extrinsic evidence, it is for the jury to find, also, the meaning of the terms employed; but the effect of a parol agreement, when its terms are given and their meaning fixed, is as much a question of law as the construction of a written instrument.

4. In works of art it is a prudent and common stipulation, for the prevention of controversies, that the construction of the work shall be determined by some persons in whose judgment the parties have confidence; and the judgment of this forum cannot be disregarded or revised by a court and jury.

THIS was an action of assumpsit in which the plaintiff declared in a special count, and also in the common count for work and labor done.

Upon the trial at Franklin, on the last fall circuit, before his Honor, Judge Saunders, it appeared that several personsbelonging to the Methodist Society had subscribed sums of money for building a meeting house; that the building of the house was let out publicly to the lowest bidder by commissioners; that at the bidding a specification of the building required—of its dimensions,, form, materials, and workmanship—was read aloud, and that the defendants, who were not shown to have any other concern with the transaction, thereupon declared and promised that "if the work was done according to the specifications, and accepted by the commissioners" (according to the language of some of the witnesses), or "when the work was done and accepted by the commissioners" (according to the language of other of the witnesses) they would pay the sum at which the building should be bid off. The plaintiff became the lowest bidder at that auction, and having, as he alleged, finished the building, tended it to the commissioners, who rejected it as not having been completed according to the specifications. The commissioners objected, first, that the building wanted two girders, which, by the specifications, were required to be erected throughout its entire length, and that instead thereof there were three girders

across its breadth; secondly, that the windows, instead of having all of them sixteen lights, as required in the specifications, had, those in front, eighteen lights, and those in the rear .fifteen only; thirdly, that the weatherboarding, instead of showing not more than six inches, showed in some places six and a half inches, and in others six and three-quarter inches; and fourthly, that the shingling of the roof had been done unfaithfully. The plaintiff offered evidence to show, with regard to the two first objections, that the changes in the specifications therein embraced, had been made with the approbation and consent of the defendants—and to show that the other two objections were frivolous and unfounded. It was insisted by the defendants that, admitting the facts to be established for which this evidence was offered the plaintiff's case was not thereby sustained, because the approbation of the work by the commissioners was a condition of the engagement of the defendants; and they submitted a motion for a nonsuit. By the assent of theparties this...