Title: Bailey v. Norton

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

178 Kan. 104 (1955)
283 P.2d 400
WARREN W. BAILEY, Appellee,
v.
FAY NORTON and RALPH NORTON, Appellants.
No. 39,704

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 7, 1955.
*105 C.K. Sayler, of Topeka, argued the cause, and L.M. Ascough and John A. Bausch, both of Topeka, were with him on the briefs for the appellants.
Richard L. Hill and Richard C. Wells, both of Manhattan, were on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, J.:
This was an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien against real estate. The appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to the petition as amended by supplemental allegations.
Omitting formal averments, the prayer, paragraphs identifying the parties, and other paragraphs describing the real estate and the status of its title, the petition reads:
The employment contract, which is made a part of the petition, contains other provisions material to the issues not specifically referred to in that pleading. Included therein, among others, are the following provisions:
Following the filing of the petition defendants moved that its allegations be made more definite and certain in a number of particulars, only two of which are here important. These, it may be stated, were that plaintiff be required to state (1) which defendant requested certain work and promised to pay, whether such request or promise was oral or in writing and if in writing to attach a copy thereof and (2) which changes or additions constituted major items as set out in the copy of the employment contract. Without requiring a ruling on this motion plaintiff amended his petition in all particulars requested by filing what he denominated "amended and supplemental petition." With respect to the matters last above mentioned this pleading states that the defendants, Fay and Ralph Norton, orally requested extra work and orally agreed or promised to pay for the same and describes numerous changes in the plans and specifications which are alleged to constitute major items, within the meaning of that term as used in the employment contract. Thereupon, without further motions of any character, defendants demurred to the petition on the ground it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and to the amended and supplemental petition for the same reason. Thereafter, when such demurrer was overruled by the trial court on the basis the petition as amended *107 and supplemented did state a cause of action, they perfected the instant appeal.
At the outset, and before giving consideration to contentions advanced respecting the sufficiency of its allegations, it should perhaps be stated, that under the conditions and circumstances, heretofore related, the petition and the amended and supplemental petition must be read together and regarded as a single pleading which is entitled to all benefits afforded under the rule of liberal construction. Our statute (G.S. 1949, 60-756) provides, and our decisions (See, e.g., Quinlan v. Danford, 28 Kan. 507) recognize, that a plaintiff may amend his petition, without leave, at any time before the filing of answer, without prejudice to the proceedings.
Highly summarized, and limited strictly to facts material to a disposition of the question whether the petition fails to state a cause of action as a matter of law, there can be no doubt such pleading must be construed as stating that appellants and appellee entered into a written contract whereby the latter was to construct a dwelling house for appellants at a cost of $36,500.00 if possible and to receive 10% of the cost of construction for his services; that such contract contained other provisions contemplating major changes or additions to the plans and specifications, which plans and specifications were to be agreed upon in writing by the appellee and the appellants; that in the event those changes or additions were made appellee was to be compensated for his services on the same basis for their cost of construction; that after the execution of the contract and during the course of construction of the dwelling house major changes or additions were found to be desirable and thereafter, without agreeing in writing for changes in the plans and specifications, appellants orally requested appellee to make certain major changes and additions and agreed to pay appellee in accord with the terms of the contract for making them; that pursuant to such oral requests and in reliance upon appellants' oral promises to pay in the manner indicated for making them appellee made the requested major changes and additions; that these changes involved added expenditures in the cost of construction of the building which, when computed at the basic contract rate, entitled him to an additional sum of $2,346.80 for his services; and that the appellants failed, neglected and refused to pay such sum upon the completion and acceptance of the dwelling house with the result that he is now *108 entitled to recover that amount and all other additional relief claimed in his petition.
Once the petition is construed and the force and effect to be given its allegations firmly fixed and established there is actually but one fundamental legal question left in this lawsuit. Appellants contend that as a matter of law appellee is precluded from suing on the oral contract for additional compensation in addition to that due under the written contract when the latter provides that any changes in the basis of compensation, i.e., major additions or changes to the plans and specifications, are to be agreed upon in writing. On the other hand the appellee insists the written contract may be modified or changed by agreement of the parties and that under the facts set forth in the petition it is clear they did modify it, not only by specific agreement but by their subsequent conduct, wherein appellants orally ordered and promised to pay for major changes which, when made by appellee and accepted by appellants, were bound to result in increased work and compensation for appellee. Let us see.
It may be conceded, at the outset, that we are cited to and know of no cases in this jurisdiction dealing with building and construction contracts wherein the specific question raised by the parties in this case has been directly passed upon. Nevertheless it may be stated the question whether a written contract may be modified or waived has long since been set at rest. See Hill v. Maxwell, 71 Kan. 72, 75, 79 Pac. 1088, where it is said:
A more recent expression of the court, dealing with the modification and waiver of written agreements by parol, wherein the rule announced in the case last above cited is recognized, adhered to, discussed and applied is Alexander v. Flick, 154 Kan. 446, 119 P.2d 464.
Perhaps, of all our decisions, the case closest in point is Cretcher v. Machine Works Co., 116 Kan. 54, 225 Pac. 1041. However, it is to be noted, no question was there raised respecting the failure of the pleadings to state a cause of action and what is said and held *109 relates to the rights of the parties during the trial of the case. There, although factual differences exist, the plaintiff was seeking to foreclose a mechanic's lien and recover more for materials furnished than provided for under the terms of a somewhat similar contract. The defendant was contending oral evidence was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule because it tended to modify or change the terms of the written contract. Here, in support of their position, the appellants argue the petition fails to state a cause of action because to establish the oral contract relied on would require parol evidence to vary the terms of a written contract. We believe this decision supports and sustains the appellee's position in this case. In disposing of the contention there advanced this court held:
And at page 55 of the opinion said:
And so here, using Cretcher v. Machine Works Co., supra, as a precedent, and in effect paraphrasing the language used by the court in the opinion we believe it may be said the allegations of the instant petition are susceptible of a construction that another and additional contract had been subsequently made between the parties. That being true it would seem that under our own decisions the allegations of the petition, when given the benefit of all reasonable inferences, were sufficient to withstand a demurrer based on the ground they fail to state a cause of action. Of a certainty, as applied directly to building and construction contracts, *110 such as are here involved, this conclusion is inescapable under the decisions of other jurisdictions. For a general statement of the rule adhered to by the overwhelming weight of authority see 17 C.J.S., Contracts, 850 § 371(3) which reads:
And see other supporting statements to be found in the same volume at pages 822, 844, 846, 865 and 868, §§ 365, 371 (b), 371 (d), 377 and 379.
See, also, 9 Am. Jur., Building and Construction Contracts, 17, 18, § 23, where it is said:
Without attempting to exhaust the field it may be stated that ample support for the doctrine stated in the two foregoing quotations is to be found in numerous other well-recognized and established legal treatises and textbooks. See, e.g., 2 Williston on Contracts (Rev. Ed.), 1702, § 591; 6 Williston on Contracts (Rev. Ed.), 5171, 5178, §§ 1826, 1828; 6 Corbin on Contracts, 156, § 1294; Restatement, *111 Contracts, § 407. See, also, 66 A.L.R., Anno., 649, particularly 662 and 679; 31 Illinois Law Review, 783, 786, inclusive; 30 Minnesota Law Review, 547, 550, inclusive; and numerous decisions therein referred to.
Based on the foregoing authorities and mindful that we are here passing upon the sufficiency of a pleading, not upon the merits of a cause, we have no difficulty in concluding that under the facts, conditions and circumstances set forth in the petition, and referred to at length in the opinion, the trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer to that pleading.
In conclusion it should be stated we have rejected not overlooked a final contention advanced by appellants in which they seek to reverse the trial court's ruling because of an alleged variance in the petition and the lien statement attached thereto. Assuming, without deciding, the instruments in question are susceptible of such a construction the appellee would be entitled to a money judgment under the allegations of the petition notwithstanding. Under these circumstances it cannot be successfully argued the trial court erred in holding the petition stated a cause of action.
The judgment is affirmed.