Powers v. Central Surety & Insurance
Before: Thompson
[736]
THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.
The defendants Teel and Alvordian were the successful bidders for the making of ■ certain public improvements contemplated by the county of Los Angeles. They entered into a contract with the plaintiff whereby the latter was to do the grading and construct the sub-base upon a street known as Madison Avenue. After performing a part of" the work the plaintiff ceased operations and brought this action, claiming that he was prevented from completing his contract by the action of the defendants. The trial court sustained his contention and rendered judgment in his favor. The defendant Alvordian only prosecutes this appeal therefrom.
The appellant insists that the testimony is' insufficient to support the finding that the defendants breached the contract and contends that it demonstrates beyond doubt that the respondent abandoned the work because he did not have the resources with which to prosecute the job to completion. A short
résumé
of the testimony discloses ample foundation for the lower court’s conclusions. The respondent testified that after he had done all the rough grading it was possible to do he made a demand for some money and that the engineers of appellant came and looked the job over; that “they couldn’t find any fault with it; ... I asked Mr. Eeynolds ... if there was anything more I could do that would make the job look better to him so he would accept it, to get my
money . . .
and he said, “There isn’t anything I can say you can do any more until the sewer is in.’ ” He further added that the defendants “stalled along for three weeks or a month before they finally made the deal with Mr. Kovacevich to take over the entire job”; that he asked the defendants “several times when they were going to complete the job and they wouldn’t give me any satisfaction, neither would they give me the balance of my money”; that he talked with Mr. Teel or Mr. Alvordian several times, “but they informed me that the bonding company and the surety company were going to take the job away from them; that they didn’t have enough money to finish, and that the bonding house was going, in order to protect themselves, they were going to take the job away from them”; that he talked to Mr. Harri
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)