Rousseau v. Cohn

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment against the defendant and from an order denying his motion for a new trial in an action for services rendered by plaintiffs as architects.

Defendant relies for a reversal of the judgment and order upon the insufficiency of the evidence. The only specification of such insufficiency is “That the evidence is wholly insufficient to justify a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.” We think, with the plaintiffs, that this is not a compliance with section 648 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring a specification of the particulars wherein the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision.

(Matter of Baker,

153 Cal. 537, [96 Pac. 12];

Meek

v.

Southern Cal. Ry. Co.,

7 Cal. App. 607, [95 Pac. 166];

Porter

v.

Counts,

6 Cal. App. 551, [92 Pac. 655].) But as defendant claims that there is an entire absence of evidence to support the finding assailed—in which event he asserts that a specification of particulars is unnecessary

(San Luis Water Co.

v.

Estrada,

117 Cal. 168-184, [48 Pac. 1075])—we have examined the evidence, and will therefore rest our decision upon the principal point in the case, without further noticing respondents’ claim that the specification set forth above is entirely insufficient.

Plaintiffs prepared plans and specifications for the construction of a building to be erected in San Francisco; a builder was found who would construct the building for less than fourteen thousand dollars, and who furnished at once a satisfactory bond for the performance of his contract. As all these things were according to the terms of plaintiffs ’ contract with defendant, they were entitled—the defendant having refused to permit them to proceed further—to recover a reasonable compensation for services already rendered, and the damages arising from a prevention of complete performance.

[471]