Opinion ID: 2405511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adjustment of Accounts

Text: All of the work which was completed by Bland Construction Company related exclusively to the work which was to have been performed by Smith under his subcontract with Page. For this reason Page asserts that he is entitled to recover from Smith and/or his surety, Globe Indemnity Company, any amount charged against him for the failure to fully complete the work. The trial court deducted from the amount due Page from the Water District the amount found by the jury to be the reasonable cost of completion of the work listed in the two gig sheets ($14,990.00) and allowed a deduction of that same amount from the total amount Page owed Smith. The Water District appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals asserting that the actual cost of completion of the contract ($39,234.07) was the only proper amount to be deducted from the amount it owed Page. Page and Smith went to the Court of Civil Appeals as appellees only. In the Court of Civil Appeals Page had a counterpoint urging that the trial court had not erred in deducting the reasonable cost of completion of the deficiencies listed in the two gig sheets from the amount the Water District owed him. Page had no counterpoint in the Court of Civil Appeals requesting that court to adjust accounts between him and Smith if it was determined that the actual cost of completion of the work was the proper deduction to be made from the amount the Water District owed Page. After concluding that the actual cost of completion was the proper deduction to be made from the amount the Water District owed Page, the Court of Civil Appeals refused to adjust accounts between Page and Smith for $39,234.07 since Page had not requested the Court to do so. Page assigned this as error in his motion for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals. Thus, we are confronted with the issue of whether Page, having received all relief to which he was entitled in the trial court and as appellee in the Court of Civil Appeals, has waived his right to an adjustment of accounts with Smith by failing to include under a counterpoint a prayer for such relief in the event the Court should conclude, as it did, that the actual cost of completing the work ($39,234.07) was the proper deduction to be made from the amount the Water District owed Page. Page made no complaint of the trial court's judgment. It was only after the Court of Civil Appeals charged Page with the cost of the Bland contract, thus reducing his judgment against the Water District by $25,712.77, that Page was compelled, under penalty of waiver, to seek an adjustment of the increased charge between him and Smith. Page properly requested an adjustment of accounts with Smith in his motion for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals, and Page should have been allowed to recover from Smith $8,389.30, the amount of overpayments made by him to Smith. We now address ourselves to the points of error brought to this court by the Water District.