Court Opinion

ID: 9546999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:39:32.48548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:09.417854
License: Public Domain

Kimball, C. J.,
(concurring) I add a few words in reference to a contention that is not specifically noticed in the foregoing opinion.
There is no doubt that plaintiff was employed by *75defendants to complete the construction of the waterwheel. If, as explained by Judge Riner, plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to show that there was no agreement limiting his compensation, and the $400 received by him was merely in part payment, he was entitled to recover on defendants’ implied promise to pay the reasonable value of the labor and materials, less $400, without any inquiry as to the amount of actual benefit to defendants. It does not seem to be contended that plaintiff’s damage by that measurement was less than awarded by the judgment.
Defendants’ objection to the judgment is on the ground that the court applied the wrong measure of damage, as shown by the recital that the indebtedness was “in assumpsit on a contract which should be implied in law by reason of a benefit received by defendants at plaintiff’s expense.” That recital seems to indicate that the court applied the measure of damage proper in cases of quasi-contract, as distinguished from cases of contracts either express or implied in fact. Plaintiff has filed no brief, and I assume, as defendants argue, that this was not the proper measure of damage under the issues and evidence in this case. If there was error, I think it was harmless, as the amount of the judgment was considerably less than plaintiff claimed as the reasonable value of the labor and materials under testimony that does not seem to be questioned. See Eller v. Salathe, 44 Wyo. 369, 377, 12 P. (2d) 386, 389.