The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-11-26

From the Circuit Court of Iauderiale
County. 5. II. Terral Judge.
Building contract Eltra r5rh Fla.
tires.
| CHALMERS, J.
Covert contracted in writing to erect
a large brick building in Meridian for
Baum q Co, for $l7, 800. The work
was to be done under the general super
vision of an architect, and the specihca-
tions were drawn up with great exact
ness. There was special stipulation
that no extras or outside work should
be allowed or paid for unless agreed up
on beforehand in writing. This agree
ment was signed by all the parties. The
contractor, having finished the house,
presented a claim for several hundred
dollars for extra work, and obtained
judgment therefor. He admitted that
no agreement for same had been made
in writing, but proved before the Jury
that he received verbal orders for each
item Of extra work. He claims that the
owners saw the work done, and that il
is reasonably worth the sums charged.
! The owners assert not only that the or,
ders, if given, were verbal, and therefore
void, but also that the work was done,
if at all, without their authority, and in
some instances without their knowledge
Jr consent.
The jury believed the contractor and
therefore their verdict was correct. Not.
withstanding the previous agreement, it
was entirely competent for the parties
to contract verbally Both being m
juris, they could nullify their previous
agreement at pleasure. Coaggs@ jart
jus.
But the case was tried upon the wrong
| basis, great stress being laid by each
party upon the terms of the contract
not for the purpose of showing that the
extra work sued for was without or
within these terms, but as proof that
there had or had not been a precedent
writing agreed upon, or that by the
terms of the contract such precedent
writing could be supplied by verbal
contract, etc. The jury were told, too,
that the reception of the house with the
additions to the original plan imposcda
legal liability upon its owners to pay
the reasonable value thereof. The court
was evidently forgetful of the fact that
the owners had already paid for the
house, and had right to use it. of
which the contractor could not deprive
them by reason of unauthorized adj
ditlons, which they incurred no liab.i-
to pay for by mere reception of the
structure. The jury were also told that
defendants were bound rs to the credi-
bility of the architect by their produc-
ton of his certificate as TO the extra
work done, such written certificate being
equivalent to previous agreement.
This was dOubly erroneous, because the
building contract does not make the
architects certificate equivalent to a
previous agreement, and because this
suit being for the recovery Of the price
for'extra or outside work, the building
contract had nothing to do with il.
That contract could be appealed to by
either party, but only to show that the
things sued for were or were not en-
braced IN the contract price For all
other purposes it was inadmi.-abe,
because wholly immaterial. The jury
were informed that the owners of the
building were liable for all work done
by the special orders of the architect
under whose general supervision the
building was erected, and who by the
terms of the written contract, had
authority to control the work BY sew
eral of the instructions the jury were
left to construe the contract for them
selves. All such instructions, on either
side, could only tend TO mislead and
confuse the jury. The written contract
IN no manner cantrols,the rights of the
parties, except as showing what things
we're covered by the contract price. Not
Sithstanding their stipulations TO the
contrary, the owners must pay n reason
Die value for everything proved 10 have
been furnished by their order; but the
burden of such proof is Of course upon
he contractor, and this burden is great
y increased by the written stipulation
n advance.
The court correctly ruled tina; the gas
fixtures in the building attached to ne
reehold for the purpose of being usel
here, were covered by the mechanics
len. But it erred in ruling that inc
ables used as counters were 30 coyereu'
or 1t is not shown that they were
ttached to the house, or were not ordf
airy movable tables. Rergsed ana -
landed
Wh;t.I-o. a. Nh r. -..-1l.,ta