The record-union., 1891-01-27

Appeal from the Superior Court of Tulare
County-Wm. w. Cross Judge
For appellants, Brown Il Daggett
For respondents, Lamberson q Taylor,
IN BANK.
A. P. HARLAN EFT AL, \
Respondents.
We. No Ia 063
J. III. STCFFLEEEEM, EFT AL.
Appellants.
Action for the foreclosure Of a mechanics
lien.
The plaintiffs contracted with the defendant
Stuthebeem. who was the lessee OF certain
lands owned by the defendants Bashore to do
the work OF painting, vanishing and granting
upon some buildings which Stufflebeem was
constructing for himself upon said lands
upon the completion of which they were to re-
ceive S145.
The main issue presented in the case was
whether the plaintiffs had completed the work
according to their contract.
The court found that the plaintiffs had sub
stantially complied with ali the terms of said
contract, and completed said work on or
about the 10th day OF April. 1890, but that
some small places in the house were not prop
erly grained and finished, and that the cost of
properly finishing such places would be not
more than five dollars; and thereupon gave
judgment FOR the plaintiffs for the amount of
the contract price after deducting said sum of
five dollars.
i. 1t is contended by the appellants that the
findings are contradictory, and do not support
the Judgment.
Neither OF these propositions can be main
tanned.
1hS !iilulis tiistl the piitintiIS, SUBSTANTIALLY
complied with all the terms of their contract
and completed the work, is entirely consistent
with the finding that some places in the
houses were not properly grained and finished:
ana the finding that the cost of properly fin
1shing such places would not be more than
nve dollars supports rather than contradicts
the finding of substantial performance
The performance of u contract need not in
all cases be literal and exact in order to entitle
party to compensation therefor. Especially
Is this the rule in contracts for labor by me-
chanicS or artisans, where the quality Of the
work done, or the manner OF its performance
is the sole matter in dispute. and is to be do,
tracts for the construction or repair of build
lngS, substantial performance of his con-
tract is sufficient TO entitle the con- ractor IN
compensation for the work done by him under
the. contract. If there has been no wiIlful de-
parture from its provisions, and no omission
of any of its essential parts, and the con-
tractor has in good fifth performed all of its
substantive terms, he will not be held to have
forfeited his right to q recovery by reason of
trivial defects or imperfections in the work
performed. II the omission or imperfection
Is so slight that it cannot be regarded as an
integral or substantive part of the original
contract ana the other party can be conpen-
sated therefor by a recoupment for damages
the contractor does not lose his right OF ac-
ton. (Wharton on Contracts, Sec. COZ: Iigget
VS.. Smith, Watts 331; Phillip VS.. Gallant
GO n. \. 264; Hayward VS.. Leonard, Z Pick
This rule is peculiarly applicable in q case
where the other party has received the benefit
of what has been done. and is enjoying the
fruits of the work
Section 11S7 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
provides that: ANY trivial imperfection in the
said work shall not be deemed such n
lack of completion as TO prevent the filing of