Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-24
Law Court Decides
Cumberland Cases.

The law court has handed down re-
scripts in the following Cumberland
County cases:
e Rumery Co. and Masonic Trustees OF
Portland. Trustees. Rescript, Spear j.
This case comes up on the following
stipulation: at is hereby stipulated and
be reported to the law court for final de-
cision upon the facts as reported by the
referee; that the record of the case on
report shall include the peadings. the
rule of reference, the report of the
referee and this stipulation, that the
evidence need not be printed but that the
official stenographer's .typewrtten tran
script of the same may be used before
the law court by either party in the
manner and to the extent stated in the
referees report" In view of the find
ings of fact by the referee, but one of
the questions of law need be considered,
and this will be referred to in it's appli-
cation to the contention Of the parties
when reached. There is no controversy
terials and work for the structural steel
for the roof framing for the School for
Feeble Minded, and that the buildings
were to consist of two domitOries
The Referee finds that when the con-
tract was signed the plaintiff understood
it to call for one building only: that the
defendant understood it to call for two
buildings; that until some time in No
vember, several months after the con-
tract was made, the plaintiff did not un-
derstand that the specifications called for
two buildings or that defendant was
expecting more than one roof; that the
plaintiff was not negligent in not dis
covering that The plans and stipuat1ons
covered two buildings before it executed
the contract and defendant did noe
know that plaintiff understood that only
one building was embraced in the con-
tract The referee also says II find
subject to the opinion of the court, in
view of the fact that the defendant had
knowledge before executing the contract
that at least one other contractor had
tons as to the number of buildings. and
in view of the smailness of the amount
which plaintiff proposed to furnish the
steel roof framing. it being many hun
dred dollars less than II would actually
cost to furnish roof framing for two
buildings that the defendant. an eX
perienced contractor and bidder on con-
tracts, embracing iron and steel struc-
on inquiry as to whether the plaintH
was not acting under mistake. as to TIE
number of the buildings II Is tie
opinion OF the court that this tndlIS
Should be sustained.
But notice sufficient to put one upon
inquiry imposes upon him such a degree
of diligence as will enable him to ases :
tain the truth. and in failing to so do e
will be charged with the knowledge lie
ought TO have obtained by investigation.
Being put upon inquiry it was the da-
" or the QSItilbdHl To llttNf llliOi Hltd ~
plaiptin of its apprehension, if not
knowledge as to the plaintiffs misunder-
standing.
n this apparent contract then could he
cancelled or treated 'as though no
writing ever existed" or as mo agree
1nent" because the plaintiff upon a MI
terial matter understood ii one way ana
the defendant understood it another, and
was charged with knowledge of the
plaintiffs mistake, then the minds or tire
parties did not meet and no contract
between them was ever contaminated.
1t therefore follows that the plaintif
can recover upon quantum merult me
referee has found that the plaintiff upon
a auantum meluit is entitled to recover
Judgment for sl7ss.29 and interest from
Dec IS 1903 atfd cost of reference taxed
ut s25 Sc and costs of court to be taxed
bv the court In accordance with the
stipulation the entry must be, & -
Judgment for the plaintiff for sl7S9 y
and interest from December ~ 1909, and
costs of reference. S2S.S6 and costs of
court TO be taxed by the eourt@