Graham-hall Sheet Metal Works v. Douglas

THOMPSON, J. The defendant and cross-complainant, A. A. Douglas, has appealed from a judgment of $436.92, which was rendered against him in a suit for the reasonable value of floor furnaces, labor and materials supplied by the plaintiff incident to the construction of several houses.

The defendant, Douglas, was a contractor, who was constructing several houses at Napa. Plaintiff contracted in writing to supply Douglas with seventy-seven floor gas furnaces with a minimum capacity of “30,000 BTU,”- and other materials and labor. It furnished only twelve furnaces. The plaintiff brought suit for $1,632.37. The complaint was couched in two counts. The first count was based on a claim for the reasonable value of equipment, materials and labor supplied. The second cause was founded on an alleged open book account. The defendant, Douglas, filed an answer denying the material allegations of-the complaint. He also filed a cross-complaint, asking for damages for breach of contract in the sum of $749.85, consisting chiefly of failure to supply sixty-five furnaces of the reasonable value of $30 apiece.

The cause was tried by the court sitting without a jury. It found that the written contract, set out in the cross-complaint, was executed and binding; that plaintiff breached the contract by failing to supply sixty-five furnaces, but that the reasonable value of those furnaces was only $19 apiece, instead of $30, as alleged by the defendant. There is no controversy regarding the other items of damages. The court accordingly awarded, plaintiff judgment for said sum of $1,632.37, together with the further sum of $83.57, aggregating $1,715.94, from which the court deducted, as damages for breach of contract, sixty-five furnaces at $19 apiece, amount[454]ing to $1,235, together with an item of $44.02, being the cost necessarily incurred by the defendant for repairs on account of default of the plaintiff, aggregating the sum of $1,279.02. Judgment was therefore entered in favor of plaintiff for the balance amounting to $436.92. From that judgment this appeal was perfected.

It is contended the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence for the reason that there is no competent proof that the reasonable market value of the furnaces was only $19 apiece. On the contrary, it is asserted the uneontradicted evidence shows that the market value of those furnaces was in excess of $30 each. No other issue is raised upon this appeal.

We are convinced there is no competent evidence that the reasonable market value of the furnaces was only $19 apiece. The uneontradicted evidence is that they were worth in excess of $30.