Court Opinion

ID: 9829024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:56:03.866164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.447455
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[11] If, under such authorities as noted in 9 Oye. 638, 639, and many of which are collated in notes to Davis v. Bronson, 33 Am. St. Rep. 783, it could be said that the action of the board of directors of the Oil Company, referred to in our original opinion, considered in connection with the other attendant circumstances mentioned, was such a repudiation of the contract to pay $50 per day for the alleged extra work as to deprive plaintiff of the legal right to recover on said contract •for the work done after the institution of the suit, still plaintiff showed a clear right to recover $50 per day for such work upon his alternative plea of quantum meruit, since it was shown by uncontroverted evidence that the work was reasonably worth that sum, was performed with the knowledge and consent of the company, and was accepted by it.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.