Court Opinion

ID: 9864777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:11:09.360388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:46.023324
License: Public Domain

*277Mr. Justice Adams
concurring in the result.
I agree that the judgment should be affirmed, but on the ground that neither the pleadings nor evidence entitle the plaintiff to recover on contract, express or implied, or on quantum meruit. I do not understand that a breach of statutory duty has to be classified as an action ex delicto, or that the case here necessarily bears that construction. We invariably say that the laws of the land are written into every contract that is made, and suit may be had on the contract, regardless of tort. But here there was no privity of contract between the subcontractor or materialman, and the school district; there could be no lien because it was a school building, and this is right. It would be contrary to public policy to close a school house to accommodate a mechanic’s or a material-man’s lien. And so I concur in the opinion that the plaintiff has no case, but I question if the subject of negligence or tort is involved.