Case Name: ORPHEUS VAUDEVILLE COMPANY v. CLAYTON INVESTMENT COMPANY
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1914-04-13
Citations: 44 Utah 453
Docket Number: No. 2520
Parties: ORPHEUS VAUDEVILLE COMPANY v. CLAYTON INVESTMENT COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Utah Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 453–472

Head Matter:
ORPHEUS VAUDEVILLE COMPANY v. CLAYTON INVESTMENT COMPANY.
No. 2520.
Decided April 13, 1914.
Rehearing denied May 9, 1914
(140 Pac. 653).
1. Evidence — Parol Evidence — Agreement eos Lease — Construction — Provisions as to Furnishing. Under a contract for the construction and lease of a theater building, providing that defendant should completely equip it in accordance with the architect’s specifications to he approved by plaintiff, where neither the contract nor the architect specified what should constitute the equipment, evidence of qualified witnesses that an asbestos curtain, a ticket office, a brass rail for such office, a gridiron, and rigging loft, chairs-, and decorations for ceiling and walls were usual and necessary parts of the equipment was admissible. (Page 460.)
2. Contracts — Buildings — Performance — Act of Architect— Agreement for Lease — Building Plans. Under a contract whereby defendant was to build and equip and lease a theater-building to plaintiff, providing that it should be equipped in accordance with specifications which, in fact, were prepared as the work progressed, the architect’s failure to prepare complete specifications of equipment such as fixtures and decorations, which were the last things done in completing the building, did not relieve defendant from his obligation to furnish such items of equipment as were shown to be usual and necessary. (Page 460.)
STRAUP J., dissenting.
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Hon. M. L. Ritchie,'Judge.
Action by Orpheus Vaudeville Company against the Clayton Investment Company.
Judgment for Plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
See also 41 Utah, 605, 128 Pac. 575.
Pierce, Gritchlow & Barrette for appellant.
Gustin, Gillette & Brayton for respondent.
STATEMENT OK EAOTS.
This is an action for damages for breach of contract. The cause was tried to a jury who returned a verdict for plaintiff, hereafter referred to as Vaudeville Company, in the sum of $4664.48. Prom the judgment rendered on the verdict, defendant, hereafter referred to as Clayton Company, appeals. The case was before this court on a former appeal. Orpheus Vaudeville Go. v. Glayton Inv. Go., 41 TJtah, 605, 128 Pac. 575.
The parties to the action, on April 7, 1905, entered into a contract in writing, which, so far as material here, is as follows:
“The party of the first part (Clayton Company) hereby agrees to completely build, erect, and equip, at the cost of the party of the first part, in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by Architect C. M. Neuhausen, at the expense of the party of the first part, which plans and specifications shall first be approved by the party of the second part, a theater building, which shall be erected on that certain piece of land, situated in' Salt Lake, IJtah, and described as follows (describing -a piece of land on State Street between First and Second South Streets). The party of the second part shall not have the right to require the expenditure by the party of the first part of more than thirty thousand ($30,000) dollars for the erecting and equipping of said building and entrance; but, in case the said party of the first part shall expend more than thirty thousand ($30,000) dollars in erecting and equipping said building and entrance, the party of the second part shall not, because of said greater expenditure, be required to pay any more rent for the said premises than is above provided, nor shall the party of the second, part be required to pay any portion of said additional expenditure. . . . The party of the first part further agrees that said building and entrance shall be completed and equipped in all particulars in accordance with said plans and specifications on or before the 1st of October, A. D. 1905.”
The Clayton Company, at the time the contract was entered into, executed' a lease of the premises to the Vaudeville Company. The lease, which is" in the usual and customary form of such instruments, provided) among other things, that the Vaudeville Company “shall have and hold” the premises from October 1, 1905, until October 1, 1915. The contract and lease, each of which was in duplicate, were placed, together with an escrow agreement, in a local bank. The Clayton Company deposited its certified check for $10,000 with the contract and lease in escrow. The escrow agreement provided, among other things, that “the said certified cheek, together with one copy of the said lease, shall be delivered to the party of the first part upon compliance by it, on or before October 10, 1905, with all the terms of the said inclosed contract and plans and specifications, . . . and one copy of said lease shall thereupon be delivered to the party of the second part. If the party of the first part shall fail to comply with all the terms and conditions of said contract on or before the 10th day of October, 1905, the contents of this envelope are to be delivered to the party of the second part on the 1st day of November, 1905.”
While the building, according to the contract, was to have been erected and equipped on or before October 1, 1905, owing to the contemplated structure being enlarged, there were several extensions of time granted, and hence it was not turned over to the Vaudeville Company until December 25th. It is alleged in the complaint:
“That, in erecting, building, and equipping said theater building in accordance with said contract, it was necessary and essential, in order that the same could be used for theatrical performances, that the same should be equipped with an asbestos curtain, a ticket office, and brass rail for same, a gridiron and rigging loft, a. manager’s office, forty-eight chairs for theater boxes and stalls, and ceiling and wall decorations, all of which defendant at all times knew, . . . but that defendant failed, neglected, and refused to perform said contract on its part to be performed as hereinabove set out.” It is further alleged “that, in order to complete the erection and equipment of the said building, and in order to put the building in such condition that it would be a theater building where theatrical performances might be given, and which it became necessary for the plaintiff so to do, and because of the failure of defendant to perform its duties under said contract, . . . the plaintiff, between the 25th day of December, 1905, and the 1st day of February, 1906, was compelled to and did equip the same with an asbestos curtain, ticket office,” etc., “at an expense and cost to it of $2013.85, and that on or about the 1st day of July, 1906, it expended in wall decorations the further sum of $2000.” It is also alleged in the complaint that: “Because of the delay in erecting said building, the said lease, by interlineation, was changed so as to provide that the term should begin January 1, 1906, and continue for a period of ten years from that date; that said lease so changed was by defendant herein offered to the plaintiff herein; that . . . the plaintiff protested and objected to the defendant, and did accept said lease under protest, . . . not waiving any of its rights under said agreement; . . . that on and prior to the 25th day of December, 1905, this plaintiff was under a large forfeit amounting to $2500 to third parties in the event that it failed to open the theater for a theatrical performance on the night of December 25, 1905 ; . . . that on or about said 25th day of December, 1905, and upon being notified by defendant that said building was fully completed and ready for occupancy, plaintiff, because and on account of said forfeiture to third parties, and in order to avoid the same, took possession of the same from defendant under protest, and after objecting to the same as aforesaid.”
Defendant in its answer, among other things, alleged:
“Tbat on or about tbe 25tb day of December, 1905, plaintiff and tbe said defendant, by mutual consent, abrogated and rescinded any and all contracts tbéretofore existing between tbem respecting tbe erection, equipment, or adornment of tbe theater building mentioned; . . . tbat said action was taken by and between tbe parties hereto for and in consideration of tbe execution and delivery of tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff of a lease of tbe said building in tbe condition in which tbe same at tbat date was, and tbe said lease was tben and there accepted by tbe plaintiff from tbe defendant, and tbe said plaintiff did tben and there, in consideration of tbe rescission and abrogation of all contracts theretofore existing, and in consideration of tbe execution of said lease, enter into tbe possession and enjoyment of said building under tbe lease thereby granted; . . . tbat thereby all negotiations, contracts, agreements, and obligations theretofore pending between tbe parties were terminated and by express agreement held for naught, and all expenditures, outlays, and expenses incurred by tbe plaintiff •in connection with said building since tbe said date have been and are at tbe sole cost of said plaintiff.”
Plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show tbat, soon after it took possession of tbe building, it, at its own expense, made tbe decorations, furnished and installed tbe equipment mentioned in tbe complaint. Tbe case was tried to a jury, who returned and rendered tbe following special verdict:
“(1) Was an asbestos curtain an essential part of tbe equipment of tbe theater? If so, what was its value at tbe time it was placed in the theater? Answer: Ves; $365.
“(2) Was a ticket office an essential part of tbe equipment of tbe theater ? If so, what was its .value at tbe time it was placed in tbe theater? Answer: Yes; $177.
“(3) Was a brass rail for tbe ticket office an essential part of tbe equipment of tbe theater? If so, what was its value at tbe time if was placed in tbe theater? Answer: Yes ;■ ten dollars.
“(4) Were a gridiron and rigging loft essential parts of tbe equipment of the theater ? If so, what was their value at the time they were placed in the theater? Answer: Yes; $788.
“(5) Were forty-eight, chairs for theater boxes and stalls an essential part of the equipment of the theater'? If so, what was their value at the time they were placed in the theater? Answer: Yes; no claim allowed.
“(6) Were decorations for the ceiling and wall an essential part of the equipment of the theater ? If so, what was their value at the time they were placed in the theater ? Answer: Yes; $2000.”
From the judgment rendered on the verdict, the Clayton Company appeals.

Opinion:
McCARTY, C. J.
(after stating the facts as above).
The first question presented by the appeal relates to the admission of evidence offered by the Vaudeville Company showing that the company was under contract and bond with a third party, which contract and bond provided for a forfeit to such party in case the company failed to open the theater in question on December 25, 1905. Counsel for appellant contend that this evidence was immaterial, as it in no way related to the contract, or to the alleged breach thereof, upon which this action is predicated, and was therefore prejudicial. It is evident that respondent pleaded the contract, bond, and forfeit it was under to a third party as matter of inducement only. Appellant, in its answer among other things, alleged that respondent, by entering into the possession of the building, thereby terminated "all prior negotiations, contracts, agreements, and obligations theretofore pending between" it and appellant. The evidence complained of tended to explain and elucidate the circumstances under which respondent accepted and went into possession of the building before it was as it contends, decorated and equipped as provided in the contract. We think the evidence was, under the circumstances, properly admitted.
The contract provided that respondent could not compel appellant to expend in erecting, completing, and equipping the building and entrance thereto more than $30,000. Appellant could, however, under the contract, expend more than $30,000 in erecting and equipping the building for use as a theater, but could not compel respondent- to pay any portion of any expenditure it might make in excess of $30,000. Nor could it increase the rent of the building to respondent because of any additional expenditure. The evidence shows that it cost appellant from $50,000 to* $'10,000 to erect and put the building in the condition it was when respondent went into possession. It is contended that, since appellant expended more than $30,000 in erecting and equipping the building for use as a theater, and since "respondent received a building worth nearly twice as much as it had expected, or that appellant was obliged to build," respondent cannot, as matter of law, recover for any expenditure made by it in decorating or equipping the building for the uses for which it was intended. We think the provision of the contract limiting the amount that appellant was required to expend in erecting, completing, and equipping the building for use as a theater is plain and unambiguous. Under this provision of the contract, appellant, in order to limit the cost of the building and the equipment to $30,000, could have erected a much less elaborate structure t-han the one it did erect, and, as stated by counsel for respondent, it "could, to bring the cost of the theater down to the figures named, place in material and workmanship inferior to that which respondent might desire. It could . . . have decorated the theater in water colors rather than oil. It could (and did) furnish imitation rather than real leather chairs," etc. Appellant was, however, under the contract, bound to erect, complete, and equip a building suitable for the use for which it was intended. This assignment is without merit, and is therefore overruled.
The contract, in general terms, provided that appellant should "completely build and equip" a theater building "in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared by Architect O. M. Neuhausen, . . . which plans and specifications" were to be approved by respondent. Neither the contract nor the plans and specifications specified what should constitute the equipment of the theater building. It seems that the plans and specifications wei*e prepared by the architect as the work in erecting the building progressed, and that a complete set of plans and specifications were never prepared by the architect. Witnesses who were shown to be skilled in reading plans testified that the plans prepared by the architect for the construction of this building indicated that decorations were intended. Respondent called several witnesses, all of whom were shown to be qualified to testify as to what constituted equipment for a theater building. These witnesses testified that the following items are an essential, in fact a necessary, part of the equipment of a building used as a theater: Asbestos curtain; ticket office; brass rail for ticket office; gridiron and rigging loft; chairs; and decorations for ceiling and walls. It is contended on behalf of appellant that the court erred in admitting this evidence. We do not think so. As the particular items constituting equipment for the theater building are not set forth in detail in the contract, nor indicated in the plans and specifications, it was proper for respondent to introduce evidence tending to show what items are- usually and necessarily included in the equipment of a theater building.
It is also contended on behalf of appellant that, as the contract provided that the building should be completed and equipped "in accordance with the plans and specifications," and that since the plans and specifications do not provide for any of the items above mentioned, appellant was not legally bound to supply them. There would be much force to this contention if a complete set of plans and specifications had been prepared and submitted to and approved by respondent, and as approved had been followed by appellant in constructing and equipping the building. But that is not this case. As hereinbefore stated, the plans and specifications were prepared by the architect as the work on tbe building progressed. It appears that the decorating and painting' of the walls and ceiling, and putting in the fixtures and appliances mentioned, were the last things done and necessary to be done in preparing the building for the uses for which it was erected and for which it was intended. The failure of the architect to prepare complete plans and specifications of the building and the equipment cannot relieve appellant from its obligations as fixed by the contract.
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover costs.