Court Opinion

ID: 6632658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:38:19.890396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:59.255410
License: Public Domain

Manning J.:
The plaintiffs in error were to have one dollar fifty cents per thousand feet for drawing the timber, one dollar-of which was to be paid as the timber was drawn, in supplies to enable them to carry on the job, and the remaining fifty cents in cash, when all the timber was drawn. In the language of the contract, “ it being understood that the balance kept back is to secure the completion of this contract; and it is hereby agreed between the parties that the fifty cents per thousand feet is settled, fixed and liquidated damages, in case this contract is not completed by the said first party.”
They having failed to draw all the timber, the question is whether the fifty cents per thousand feet on what was drawn, and which was to be paid on completion of the contract, is to be regarded as stipulated damages, or in. *191the nature of a forfeiture or penalty for not completing the contract? The Court below charged the jury that the fifty cents per thousand feet on what had been drawn was stipulated damages. In this we think the Court erred. If stipulated damages for a non-performance of the entire contract, the defendant in error could not recover any other or greater damages for a non-performance, in whole or in part. And it would follow that he could recover no damages whatever on the contract, had the plaintiffs in error refused to draw any of the timber. Such clearly could not have been the intention of the parties. They must have intended that if the plaintiffs in error should draw a part of the timber, and not the whole, they should not be paid the fifty cents per thousand on what had been drawn by them. That, in the language of the contract, it should be “fixed and liquidated cfitmages.” If the contract had provided for the payment of fifty cents per thousand feet as liquidated damages for the timber not drawn, the case would be altogether different. For the nearer such a contract was completed, the less would be the damages. The damages would be proportioned to the non-performance. But the contrary would be the case as the contract is, if the fifty cents per thousand is to be regarded as liquidated damages, and not as a penalty. For the nearer the contract is completed the greater are the damages in case of failure. The damages for not drawing five thousand of five hundred thousand feet would be $24*7,50, whereas the damages for failing to draw four hundred and ninety-five of the five hundred thousand Avould be only $2,50. The policy of the law will not permit parties to make that liquidated damages, by calling it such in their contract, which in its nature is clearly a penalty, or forfeiture for non-performance. While it allows them in certain cases to fix their own damages, it will in no case permit them to evade the law by agreement. See Jaquith v. Hudson, 5 Mich. 128.
*192There was no error in admitting the contract, which is set out verbatim in the first count of the declaration, to be given in evidence, because it ivas not mentioned in the bill of particulars. The office of a bill of particulars is to inform the opposite party of the cause or causes of action the party giving it intends to rely on at the trial, not specifically set out in the declaration, • or notice accompanying the general issue. /
The damages recovered by the plaintiff (defendant in error) were less than $100, and within the exclusive jurisdiction of a justice’s court; and it is insisted the Court erred in allowing him costs. The bill of exceptions states they were allowed because the plaintiff’s claim as established on the trial exceeded $200, and was reduced by set off. We see no error in this, as the statute provides that, when the plaintiff shall recover any sum, he shall recover costs, if it appear that his claim, as established at the trial, exceeds $200, and the same was reduced by set off The judge, and not the jury, as it was insisted on the argument, is to determine that fact.
The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted.
Martin Ch. and Campbell J. concurred.