Court Opinion

ID: 9755704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:47:57.29943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:10.321020
License: Public Domain

Murphy, J.
(concurring in the result). The defendant in his brief quotes the provision as to extra compensation for blasting in the contract which he had with Refinite and also states that the plaintiff rendered his bill jointly to Refinite and the de*15fendant at the eonelnsion of the excavating work. From these references, I take it that the contract and the bill were marked in evidence as exhibits. However, the finding makes no reference to any exhibits, so that they are not part of the record before us on this appeal. In this situation, any reference to them in brief or argument is contrary to our practice. The defendant should have ensured their inclusion in the finding by timely motion to the trial court.
The appendix to the defendant’s brief includes the testimony of Burke who, on cross-examination, identified his bill to Befinite and the defendant. His explanation, if any, of the inconsistency of his claim of a separate primary contract with the defendant and his billing of the defendant and Befinite jointly, does not appear. It would have been interesting, if not novel. I suspect that the bill antedated Befinite’s bankruptcy and that the idea of a primary contract was conceived after that event. A proper record would have been enlightening.