Court Opinion

ID: 9730913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:27:45.484668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:10.707179
License: Public Domain

CLAGETT, Associate Judge
(dissenting).
As we have' said before, the Act creating this court, Code 1940, Supp. VII, § 11— 772(c), provides: “If the case shall have been tried without a jury, The Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia shall have the power to review both as to the facts and the law, but in such case the judgment of the trial court shall not be set aside except for errors of law or unless it appears that the judgment is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.” While we are not bound by the reasoning of the trial court, I believe in the present case that the underlying reasoning of the trial court was erroneous and led to a result which was plainly wrong and should therefore be reversed. The statement of proceedings and evidence approved by counsel for both parties, as well as by the trial judge, states that the judge held among other things “that the parties had dealt with a commercial type of product which was delivered in accordance with the contract.” On the contrary, there was admitted without objection evidence of defendant to the effect that he delivered to plaintiff and explained to the president of plaintiff company “that the picture of St. Theresa which he exhibited * * * was the-very picture before which his recently deceased wife had prayed for many years; that because of this sentimental reason he wished to have a likeness of his wife’s Saint carved on a monument at the head of his wife’s grave.” The effect of this conversation was admitted by the president of plaintiff company. I believe it is clear, therefore; that the evidence clearly shows that this picture which was received in evidence was to be reproduced at least in a general way on the monument. There were also received in evidence photographs of the monument as installed by plaintiff corporation. Without entering upon any artistic discussion, I think it is entirely 'clear that defendant did not receive what he contracted to pay for. I do not see how there could be any difference of opinion as to the fact that the picture supplied by defendant shows a face which I would describe as having a kindly, benign expression, whereas the face reproduced on the monument has a harsh, even forbidding, expression. The figure on the monument as supplied by plaintiff may be similar to the standard figure in a cemetery; certainly I do not see how there can be any difference of opinion that it is very different from the picture supplied by defendant as a guide. It is of some significance, I think, that defendant was so dissatisfied with the figure on the monument supplied by plaintiff that he actually paid another man $1,200 to replace the figure.