Renton, Holmes, & Co. v. Monnier

Belcher, C. C. It appears from the record in this case that on the fourteenth day of April, 1882, the defendant entered into a written contract with one Valentine H. Harding, to construct for him a building on Howard Street, in the city of San Francisco, for the sum of $8,957, to be paid in installments as the work progressed, and the first payment of $1,000 to be made when the frame was up to the second-story floor, including the second-story-floor joists and frame of sidewalk.

It was provided that the building should be constructed “ according and conformable to the drawings and specifications piade by William Mooser, architect,” and “in a good, workmanlike, and substantial manner, to the satisfaction and under the direction of the said William Mooser, the duly authorized architect, to be testified by a writing or certificate” under his hand.

The payments were to be made by defendant to Harding, his executors, administrators, or assigns, "provided that in each case a certificate be obtained and signed by the said William Mooser, architect, that said works have beep done in the most substantial and faithful workmanlike manner, to the approval and full satisfaction of said architect.”

On the 15th of April, 1882, Harding assigned to the plaintiffs the several payments to be made to him under the contract, by a written assignment, which directed the architect to deliver to plaintiffs the certificates, and directed the defendant to pay to plaintiffs the several payments as they should fall due. *

The contractor commenced his work, and the first payment of one thousand dollars became due on the 29th of April, 1882. On that day the architect gave his certificate to Harding, and the defendant paid him the one [453]thousand dollars, and subsequently refused to again pay the money to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs claimed that defendant had notice of the assignment, and wrongfully paid the one thousand dollars to Harding, and they brought this action to recover the same.

The case was tried by a jury, and the verdict and judgment were in favor of defendant. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which was denied, and then appealed from the judgment and order.

The principal question is., Did the defendant have notice of the assignment before he paid the money? If he did, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, and if not, they could not maintain their action.