C. C. Hargrove, D/B/A Hargrove Plastering Company v. Little Construction Co., Inc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., Inc.

Fourth Circuit

C. C. Hargrove, D/B/A Hargrove Plastering Company v. Little Construction Co., Inc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., Inc.

289 F.2d 61, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4939

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 1961

Docket8219

StatusPublished

This text of 289 F.2d 61 (C. C. Hargrove, D/B/A Hargrove Plastering Company v. Little Construction Co., Inc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. C. Hargrove, D/B/A Hargrove Plastering Company v. Little Construction Co., Inc., and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., Inc., 289 F.2d 61, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4939 (4th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by a subcontractor, a plasterer, against the general contractor on the construction of an addition to a hospital. The claim is for damages the subcontractor says he suffered because of delays in the work.

The case was tried by the District Court without a jury. The District Court found there was no unreasonable delay and the work of the subcontractor was substantially completed on schedule. It also found that the subcontractor did not complain of any delay until sometime after the work was substantially completed. When, finally, he did complain of delay in the work of the tile subcontractor, the defendant suggested he submit an itemized statement of the expense to which he had been put by reason of the claimed delay, offering to back charge the tile setter by that amount and to give the plaintiff credit for it. The plaintiff did not submit such a statement, but, some months later, entered into a final settlement of the contract and of all of the rights of the parties under it.

There is evidence which supports these findings. We accept them, as we must, and the findings lead necessarily to the conclusion that the judgment for the defendant must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by a subcontractor, a plasterer, against the general contractor on the construction of an addition to a hospital. The claim is for damages the subcontractor says he suffered because of delays in the work.

The case was tried by the District Court without a jury. The District Court found there was no unreasonable delay and the work of the subcontractor was substantially completed on schedule. It also found that the subcontractor did not complain of any delay until sometime after the work was substantially completed. When, finally, he did complain of delay in the work of the tile subcontractor, the defendant suggested he submit an itemized statement of the expense to which he had been put by reason of the claimed delay, offering to back charge the tile setter by that amount and to give the plaintiff credit for it. The plaintiff did not submit such a statement, but, some months later, entered into a final settlement of the contract and of all of the rights of the parties under it.

There is evidence which supports these findings. We accept them, as we must, and the findings lead necessarily to the conclusion that the judgment for the defendant must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 F.2d 61, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-c-hargrove-dba-hargrove-plastering-company-v-little-construction-ca4-1961.