Arthur Snowden Co. v. Meehan

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Arthur Snowden Co. v. Meehan

118 A.2d 687, 1955 D.C. App. LEXIS 231

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 1955

Docket1701

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 A.2d 687 (Arthur Snowden Co. v. Meehan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Snowden Co. v. Meehan, 118 A.2d 687, 1955 D.C. App. LEXIS 231 (D.C. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant corporation, brought this action to recover the reasonable value of work performed on. four houses belonging to ap-pellee. Originally, appellee had contracted with one Burns to have the houses renovated and remodeled, and under a subcon-tractual agreement with Burns, appellant was to install the necessary plumbing fixtures. It was contended that after Burns defaulted on the original contract, appel-lee requested appellant to. continue the work and orally promised to pay the reasonable value thereof. The trial court found for appellee and entered judgment accordingly. This appeal followed.

Under our Code a subcontractor is not entitled to a personal judgment against the owner of premises for money due him from the general contractor. 1 However, it is well settled that a personal, new and direct promise by the owner to pay for the work, though not in writing, is enforceable and not violative of the. statute of frauds, provided such promise is supported by sufficient consideration. Such agreement is construed to be a promise by the owner to pay his own debt and not the antecedent debt of the contractor. 2

The only question on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that no new agreement was had between the parties. The record is replete with conflicting testimony. Appellee categorically denied ever having entered into such an agreement. Even appellant’s witness was uncertain as to the time and place the alleged promise was made. We have held time and again that under such circumstances it is for the trier of the facts to weigh the credibility of the festimony and the resultant finding will not be disturbed on appeal.

Affirmed.

1

. Code 1951, § 38-121.

2

. Thomas v. Ehrmantraut, D.C.Mun.App., Ill A.2d 623, and eases cited therein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant corporation, brought this action to recover the reasonable value of work performed on. four houses belonging to ap-pellee. Originally, appellee had contracted with one Burns to have the houses renovated and remodeled, and under a subcon-tractual agreement with Burns, appellant was to install the necessary plumbing fixtures. It was contended that after Burns defaulted on the original contract, appel-lee requested appellant to. continue the work and orally promised to pay the reasonable value thereof. The trial court found for appellee and entered judgment accordingly. This appeal followed.

Under our Code a subcontractor is not entitled to a personal judgment against the owner of premises for money due him from the general contractor. 1 However, it is well settled that a personal, new and direct promise by the owner to pay for the work, though not in writing, is enforceable and not violative of the. statute of frauds, provided such promise is supported by sufficient consideration. Such agreement is construed to be a promise by the owner to pay his own debt and not the antecedent debt of the contractor. 2

The only question on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that no new agreement was had between the parties. The record is replete with conflicting testimony. Appellee categorically denied ever having entered into such an agreement. Even appellant’s witness was uncertain as to the time and place the alleged promise was made. We have held time and again that under such circumstances it is for the trier of the facts to weigh the credibility of the festimony and the resultant finding will not be disturbed on appeal.

Affirmed.

1

. Code 1951, § 38-121.

2

. Thomas v. Ehrmantraut, D.C.Mun.App., Ill A.2d 623, and eases cited therein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.2d 687, 1955 D.C. App. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-snowden-co-v-meehan-dc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack