Court Opinion

ID: 9831425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:05:53.064958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.707959
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The construction of the' contract between appellant, and appellee as made is adhered to. For the reason stated in the original opinion in disallowing appellant’s claim of 5 per cent, on item of $79,000 for plumbing, bath fixtures, and power plant, we must overrule his contention in that respect. No evidence has been cited by appellant showing any liability incurred by ap-pellee for such matters.
Appellee’s motion reiterates the points presented and disposed of originally, except the-one discussed in the next succeeding paragraph. No contention is made by appellee-that the contract for the erection' of the hotel-did not bind appellee to expend the sum as-found by the court, and therefore the sum-estimated to be the price of the hotel was not incurred by the appellee. This contract is-not found in the record, but the one for the-erection of the theater is asserted to be the same, except as to amounts. The latter is-what is usually called “a cost plus agreement.” No request had been made by the-appellee for its construction with a view to-determine whether it binds appellee to expend the amount stated in it so as to come-within the definition “cost of work” referred to. Hence no opinion is expressed thereon.
Appellee makes á point in his motion-for rehearing that we were in error in reforming the judgment so as to allow appellee a recovery of $1,246 on the item of $62,300 expended in the construction of the theater building after appellant’s discharge, claiming that this court applied an incorrect measure of damage, in that appellant did not plead nor prove that he could have saved himself from the consequences of the default of appellee by obtaining work elsewhere; There is no merit in this contention, as the authorities hold that this is a matter of defense and must at least be raised and the issue tendered by the defendant on the trial. Some of the authorities hold that the defendant must plead such issue.
It has been concluded, however, that we were in error in awarding -appellant a recovery for said sum, as the rule seems to-be in such cases that while the complaining party'may recover the natural and probable profits the contract would have yielded; when they are certain -and not contingent, but he must not receive when the woi*k is not done-the same amount of money he would have received had the contract been fully executed, and it has been held that a further deduction should be made for the less time engaged and for' release from care, trouble;, risk, and responsibility attending a full execution of the contract. Porter v. Burkett, 65 Tex. 383.
What amount should be allowed in such-case is a question for the trial court or jury,, as the case may be, and cannot be determined here. Being of the opinion that appellant is entitled to recover some damage-on said item of $1,246 under the issues as-presented on this appeal, the appellant’s motion is overruled, and for the reason indicated appellee’s motion for rehearing is-granted in part. The judgment of the trial court is reversed- and the cause remanded:.