Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-16
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRcINiAM- pilot.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People.
A. & D. r. CO. ". DEL. coNsT. co.

supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
September 49, 1900.
WHETHER A CONTRACT is JIN-
3 TIRE OR SEVERABLE is TO BE
DETERMINED FROM IT'S Lam
GUAGE AND SUBJECT MATTER.
WHERE THERE WAS A CONTRACT
TO BUILD SEVERAL PIERS, sc.
INCLUDING A WAREHOUSE ON
ONE OF THEM, AND AFTER THE
COMPLETION. OF THE WARE
HOUSE AND IT'S OCCUPANCY BY
THE OWNER. BUT BEFORE THE
WHOLE WORK WAS COM
PLETED. IT BURNED DOWN, THE
LOSS FALLS UPON THE OWNER
AND NOT UPON THE CONTRAC-
TOR.
PROFITS WHICH MAY ARISE FROM
A POSSIBLE SHIPMENT OVER a
RAILROAD ARE TOO REMOTE TO
BE ALLOWED AS DAMAGES.
A PROVISION IN a CONTRACT
THAT CONTRACTORS SHALL NOT
BE ALLOWED FOR EXTRA WORK
OR DELAY UNLESS BY SPECIAL
AGREEMENT DOES NOT COVER
a CASE WHERE THE DELAY
WAS THE FAULT OF THE OTHER
PARTY.
THE LOWER COURT CANNOT BE
REVERSED UNLESS THE APPEL
LATE COURT is SATISFIED THAT
IT IS WRONG.
This was a suit in chancery by the
railway company to recover from the
Defendant contractors Gslln.Ilas; o.
lay in competing the work required by
Inc contract. The contractors filed Il
ss-bil asking for compensation for
extra work and for delay arising from
the fault of the railway company.
An agreement IN writing was entered
into on August 80, 1894, between the At
lantic and Danville Railway Company
and Rutherford d Brown. contractors,
whereby the latter agreed and con-
tracted to furnish ali materials and la
Dor for and TO nstruct. according to
prepared plans and specifications, GER
tain docks, piers. ana warehouse. and
TO do certain dredging. for the said
railway company at its western termi
nus at Norfolk, and TO remove such old
docks and pier work as was shown ON
the plans by dotted lines. The work
was To be completed within four
months from the date of the contract,
tO-wit. on December 80, 1894.
The contractors employed the Della
ware Construction Company as sub
contractor TO do the work; which 1t did
not complete within the specified time
and does not claim to have done so un-
ill about five months thereafter, until
early in the following June.
The lower court entered n decree
against the railway company for 81
32i.74 and it appealed.
The court says:
1t is provided in the contract that
al, lnlp will
he allowed. unless such extra work or
delay is excessive, in such event the
engineer and contractors shall agree
upon the compensation for extra work
and upon the extension of the time
necessary to complete it, 1t was
claimed that no such agreement had
taken place us was contemplated by
the said provision, and strenuously
argued that therefore the contractors
could not escape liability for damages
for the failure to complete the work
within the time limit. The above pro-
vision of the contract could not have
been intended and cannot be construed
to cover Il case of delay that resulted
from the fault of the railway COM
pany. 1t cannot take advantage of its
own wrong. So much in response to
the general claim of damages for delay.
The two specific items for which
damages were specially claimed are
raj freight agent of the companX- who
testified that the company had been
put to extra expense TO the amount OF
$3.066.fS. owing to the on-complction
of the work, in handling II ,193 bales Of
cotton which reached West Norfolk
after December 80. 1884 and that ii had
been also deprived of the sum of $3525
which would have been the net revenue
on n shipment of $4,000 bales of cotton
that it had to decline because the work
had not been completed AS to the first
item in addition to what has been said
as to the responsibility of the railway
company for the delay of the cOntrac-
tors in completing the work the claim
of extra expense in handling the cotton
referred to. even if 1t be admitted to he
Il proper ground of damage under the
circumstances of this case is not so
satisfactorily proved by the evidence
adduced in support of IL that il can be
said that the court below erred in re-
fusinG to allow it, AS to the other spe-
cific item Of damages claimed. ii comes
under the head of remote and Specua-
i've damages and was properly dsal-
lowed. Burruss V. Hines, "a Va. 4l3
1t is altogether uncertain and wholly
conjecture whether there would have
been any gains or profit from tho ship
ment OF the 10000 bales of cotton
1t is next assigned as error that the
court did not allow to the railway COM
pany damages growing out of the de-
struction of the warehouse and pier
No. / and the trestle alongside of the
pier by fire. without the fault of either
party before the completion or The
work. and which were not rebuilt by
the contractors.
No precise or invariable rule can be
laid down by which it may he deter
mined whether the contract is entire
or severable. for it is question OF
construction as to the intention of the
parties to be discovered in each case
from the language employed and the
subject matter of the contract. An in
spection of the contract in the case