Harlan v. Stufflebeem
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Mechanic’s Lien—Substantial Performance of Contract — Findings — Inconsistency.—In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for painting, varnishing, and graining a building, findings that some small places in the house were not properly grained and finished, and that the cost of properly finishing them would be not more than five dollars, are not inconsistent with a finding that the plaintiff substantially performed his contract.
Id. — Substantial Performance Sufficient — Recoupment for Slight Omission — Right of Action. — In contracts for the construction or repair of buildings, a substantial performance is sufficient to entitle the contractor to compensation for the work done under the contract; and if there is'an omission or imperfection so slight that it cannot he regarded as an integral or substantive part of the original contract, and the owner can be compensated therefor by a recoupment for damages, the contractor does not lose his right of action, especially where the owner has received the benefit of what has been done.
Id. — Trivial Imperfection, — A trivial imperfection in the work cannot prevent the filing or foreclosure of a lien by the contractor for the work done by him under the contract.
Contract — Substantial Performance — Question of Fact — Finding.— Whether a contract has been substantially performed is a question of fact to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case, and a finding of the trial court thereon is as conclusive as upon any other question of fact.
Mechanic’s Lien — Contract with Lessee — Interest of Owner — Failure to Gtve Notice.—The interest of the owner in lands leased is subject to a lien for materials used in the construction of a building thereon, erected under a contract by the lessee, if the owner fails to give notice that he will not be responsible for the same.
Harrison, J. Action for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien.
The plaintiffs contracted with the defendant StufHebeem, who was the lessee of certain lands owned by the defendants Bashore, to do the work of painting, varnishing, and graining upon some buildings which Stufiiebeem was constructing for himself upon said lands, upon the completion of which they were to receive $145.
* The main issue presented in the case was, whether the plaintiffs had completed the work according to their contract.
[511]The court found that the plaintiffs had substantially complied with all the terms of said contract, and completed said work on or about the tenth' day of April, 1890, but that some small places in the houses were not properly grained and finished, and that the cost of properly finishing such places would be not more than five dollars, and thereupon gave judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount of the contract price after deducting said sum of five dollars.
1. It is contended by the appellants that the findings are contradictory, and do not support the judgment.
Neither of these propositions can be maintained.
The finding that the plaintiffs substantially complied with all the terms of their contract, and completed the work, is entirely consistent with the finding that some places in the houses were not properly grained and finished; and the finding that the cost of properly finishing such places would not be more than five dollars supports rather than contradicts the finding of substantial performance.
The performance of a contract need not in all cases be literal and exact, in order to entitle a party to compensation therefor. Esnecialty is this the rule in contracts for labor by mechanics or artisans, where the quality of the work done, or the manner of its performance, is the sole matter in dispute, and is to be decided upon conflicting testimony. In contracts for the construction or repair of buildings, a substantial performance of his contract is sufficient to entitle the contractor to compensation for the work done by him under the contract. If there has been no willful departure from its provisions, and no omission of any of its essential parts, and the contractor has in good faith performed all of its substantive terms, he will not be held to have forfeited his right to a recovery by reason of trivial defects or imperfections in the work performed. If the omission or imperfection is so slight that it cannot bo regarded as an integral or sub
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)