The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-02-17

Handed Down Yesterday in the Court
Plaintiffs Entitled to the Amount
Offered Them Before Com
!, mencemert Of Suit.

Yesterday morning in the district
court, Judge Napton handed down his
findings in the case of Fl. p and An
drew Leck against Frank Strickfaden,
an action to recover 1851 claimed to be
due as a balance on a building con-
tract
The case was argued in the court on
Feb. 8, and after all the evidence nad
been heard, the court submitted the fol-
lowing questions to the jury. and their
answers are also given:
Was there any new contract made
between plaintiff and defendant"
Yes" rf
'If you find there was such con-
tract made, was plaintiff delayed in
completing the building by reason of
the new contract?".
Yes
IF no such, delay occurred how
much time lapsed from the time the
lower story was to be completed under
the original contract, as well as under
any amendments thereto agreed to by
the parties, until the lower story was
completed?"
Ii no such delay occurred, how much
time elapsed from the time the upper
story of the building was to be com
pleted under the original contract, as
well as under any amendments there
to agreed to by the parties, until the
upper story was completed?'
What was the use Of the upper and
lower stories of the building worth dur
ing this timer
After the reading of the verdict the
attorneys for the defendant made mo-
ton to set aside the findings of the jury
and that the court make findings of its
own and render judgment for the de-
PENDANT for his counter claim. The
counter claim of the defendant was for
300 claimed to be due as damages for
the failure Of the plaintiffs to complete
the. building as per contract in that the
delay damaged the defendant in the
sum of $500 in rentals.
The motion to set aside the above
published findings of the jury was ar
gued on Feb. and submitted to the
court, and yesterday the courts findings
We're handed down, in which the find
1ngs OF the jury in the case are thrown
out and judgment is rendered in favor
of the defendant. +..a....
The findings of Judge Napton are as
follows:
The court finds from the evidence
that the plaintiffs entered into a written
contract.aa copy of which is set out in
plaintiHS eomplaiAf by the TERMS Off
the contract, it was agreed that plain
tiffs should build and construct for de-
PENDANT a certain building in the city
Of Anaconda Deer Lodge county, Mon
tana, at the agreed and stipulated price
Of 1881, and the said building should
be completed as follows: The lower
story of said building by Sept. 8, 1897,
and all of said building by Oct. 10, 1897.
That the said plaintiffs entered upon
the performance of their portion of the
said contract and completed said build
ing on or about Dec. 1, 1897, but failed
to complete the same within the time
mentioned in said contract.
That the defendant took possession of
the lower story Of said building on
Nov. 10, 1897, and took possession of the
upper story of said building on Nov.
rs, 1897.
That said defendant took possession
Of said building as soon as it was ready
for occupancy.
That said plaintiffs performed certain
extra work and furnished certain extra
materials at the request of the defen-
dant in and about the construction of
said building, the value of such extra
materials and labor being the sum of
$73.75.
That the said defendant did not at
any time during the progress of said
work or any other time direct in writ
ing such extra work or alterations, nor
did the said plaintiffs and defendant,
at such time, agree in writing as to
the time that should be added to or
deducted from the time of the compile
ton OF said contract or as to the sum
which should be added to or deducted
from the consideration mentioned in
said contract agreed to be paid for
such extra work or materials.
That on or about Jan. ~, 1898, the
plaintiffs filed notice of lien in the
clerk and recorders Office, Deer Lodge
county, Montana, as required by law,
upon the said building, claiming a bal
ance due on said contract and for extra
work of $561.40.
That the reasonable value of the use
and occupation of the lower story of
said building from Sept. 5, 1897, to Nov.
TO- 1897, was, and is 5000.
That the reasonable value of the use
and occupation Of the upper story of
said building from Oct 10, to Nov. 25,
1897, was, and is 500.
That the contract heretofore men
toned provided that in case of failure
to complete said building as provided
in said contract. the plaintiffs would
forfeit certain sum per day for
every day over said date that might be
required to complete the said building
as fixed and settled damages, said
amount to be deducted from the
amount of the consideration of said
contract.
That there was not, at any time, an
-MMAA~snsNNsN