Case ID: mich_262/html/0511-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Clark, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEISS v. CROSSTOWN CORP.
    Contracts — Building Contracts — Breach—Implied Contract to Pay.-
    Contractor -who started work on erecting houses by excavating basements and installing sewers without being authorized to do so by owner is not entitled to recover value of work done, in absence of express or implied contract to pay therefor.
    Appeal from Wayne; Robertson (William), J., presiding.
    Submitted January 18, 1933.
    (Docket No. 123, Calendar No. 36,772.)
    Decided April 4, 1933.
    
      Action by Joseph Weiss, doing business as Aviation Construction Company, against Crosstown Corporation, a Michigan- corporation, for damages for breach of a building construction contract. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Leon Dreifuss, for plaintiff.
    
      Trowbridge, Lewis & Watkins (Frederick C. Gielow, of counsel), for defendant.
   Clark, J.

Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment of no cause of action, in a trial without a jury, in a suit brought to recover damages claimed to be due on a contract to erect 16 houses.

Plaintiff was a builder. Defendant owned lots. There was discussion looking to building houses. Before any contract or agreement was made, plaintiff started work on erecting 16 houses by excavating basements and installing sewers. When defendant became aovare of this, it ordered the unauthorized work stopped. Plaintiff was given a contract for eight houses. These were built and paid for. He was given a contract for two additional houses, which were built and paid for. It was agreed that upon sale of the houses work was to start on houses on remaining of the 16 lots. The houses were not sold. Plaintiff claims a contract covering the work done and not paid for. Defendant disputes this flatly. It is purely an issue of fact.

We are in accord with the finding and decision of the trial court. There was no express contract, and on the facts here none can be implied. Spence v. Sturgis Steel Go-Cart Co., 217 Mich. 147.

Affirmed.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.