Garson Bros. v. Wilson

93 So. 783, 152 La. 536
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJune 30, 1922
DocketNo. 24005
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 So. 783 (Garson Bros. v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Garson Bros. v. Wilson, 93 So. 783, 152 La. 536 (La. 1922).

Opinion

PRO YO STY, C. J.

Plaintiff constructed a garage for defendant, under contract, in the city of Shreveport, and now demands payment for extras put into the structure.

As the building was destined to be leased to the Wheless-Wilson Auto Company, the active members of that corporation, Messrs. Roger Wheless and Frank Wilson (son of defendant), superintended the construction.

In order to avoid as far as possible the necessity of having to make changes in course of construction, the defendant requested the future lessees to' examine all the garages in the city for ascertaining what kind of building exactly they should need. A special reason for this precaution was that the money for paying for the building would have to be borrowed, and that .it would be easier for defendant to procure it'by means of one loan than by several.

After the contract had been entered into, defendant negotiated a loan of $30,700 to cover the contract price.

Defendant and the future lessees, in fixing the amount of the rent to be paid for the building, based themselves uppn this . contract price; but, knowing that, as the work progressed, changes might have to be made in the original plans which would increase the cost of the building, they inserted in the lease a clause by which, in the event an increase exceeding $2,000 was thus brought about, the rent should be increased by one-twelfth of 10 per cent of whatever the final cost might be- over the contract price.

And in like provision the following clause was added to the building contract:

“It is further mutually agreed that the said Allen V. Wilson shall, at any time" during the progress of the work, have the right to make any changes he may think necessary and shall give a written order for same. The difference in price to be added to, or deducted from the original contract, to be first agreed upon, but should the parties hereto fail to agree as to the amount to be added or deducted on account of said changes, the work shall go on according to the order, and the matter shall be submitted to three (3) arbitrators. Each party to select one (1) arbitrator and these two (2) to select a third. The decision of the majority to be final.”

It is not pretended • tbat in any instance defendant gave a written order, and it is admitted tbat in most instances be did not even give an oral order; but it is contended tbat be authorized tbe changes; tbat be did so actually, or else tacitly by standing by and not objecting.

Defendant does not deny tbat be was at tbe building nearly all tbe time -watching tbe progress of the work, and tbat be knew of tbe changes, and was consulted, with regard to some of them; but be denies tbat [539]*539he authorized them to he made, or that he agreed to pay for them, except as to a few, which he names, and which he has, he says, never refused to pay for; and, in fact, has paid for.

The Wheless-Wilson Auto Company cannot pay for these extras, it having gone into bankruptcy, so that, unless defendant pays for them, they will redound to his enrichment at plaintiff’s expense.

It is not pretended that the departures from the original plan were in a single instance on the initiative of defendant; always it was the lessees who, in their own interest, for better adapting the building to their own purposes, desired that the changes be made.

None was made without previous discussion, and nearly always, if not always, in the presence and within hearing of defendant; but he is so deaf that, unless spoken to very loud, or close to his ear, he does not hear, so that his having been within hearing is not so significant, unless accompanied by proof of his having heard.

And even then it is not so certain that he did not have the right to remain silent on these occasions, in view of the clauses in the contract that a written order would have to be given for every change to be made, and that an estimate of the probable cost would have to be made.

The ease is not the ordinary one where any changes that might be made would necessarily be in the interest of the owner, and therefore to be paid for by him. Here the changes might be solely in the interest of the lessees, and therefore possibly to be paid for by them. Defendant denies positively on the witness stand that he authorized the changes to be made, except those which he has already paid for. His son, Frank Wilson, corroborates him. Mr. Wheless, called by plaintiff as a witness, may be said to do the same. He testified as follows:

“Q. Well, who communicated to Mr. Garson the desirability of these changes, or variations and extras? A. We discussed, Mr. Frank Wilson and I, he was interested with me in the-management, and my discussion of the various-changes which we considered necessary from time to time was with him, and I usually put it up to Mm to take it up with his father, and I think together that we authorized such changes as were made. Q. You discussed — you knew that Garson Bros, were building the house under plans and specifications? A. Yes,, sir. Q. And from time to time you would see-that it was necessary to have variations and' made extras? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then you saw that it was necessary — when you realized that certain changes would have to be made, you did not give the order straight out to Mr. Garson to do it? A. No, sir; I did not. Q. Who-would you consult? A. I usually consulted Mr. Frank Wilson, and put it up to Mm. Q. Why did you consult him? A. Because he was the-son of the man that was building the building. Q. You expected him to see his father? A„ Yes, sir. Q. Did he? A. I presume so. Q. Did you see them talking together? A. I frequently entered into the discussion as to the necessity of the changes with both of them myself. Q. What would Mr. Allen Wilson say about this, when you went into a discussion about them? A. I do not recall any particular attribute or conversation just now. Q„ When you would enter into a consultation with Mr. Allen V. Wilson about the necessary changes that ought to be made in the building, for a garage — he discussed the matter with, you at time — you took it up with him at times? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he object? A. No, sir; I do not recall that there was ever any objection. Q. Then you would go and speak to Mr. Gar-son? A. I do not think that I ever gave any instructions to Mr. Garson.”

On cross-examination he said:

“Q. Didn’t Mr. Allen Y. Wilson tell you, before he began the construction of this garage, to go to all of the garages in the city of Shreveport, and determine just what you all wanted, because he did not want any extras on this, building? A. He may have told us that; I do not recollect it. * * * Q. Mr. Allen Wilson did borrow the money to build the building on this property? A. I understood so.. * * * Q. Now didn’t Mr. Frank Wilson and yourself begin to make preparations to have changes made, and don’t you know that Mr. Allen Wilson protested loudly against these-[541]*541changes, and didn’t you and Frank Wilson tell him that he need not object to them, because the Wheless-Wilson Auto Supply Company would shoulder them and pay for them? A. I do not recall that we did. I do not recall that we said we would pay for the changes. There were certain changes that we had made on our own responsibility, or rather I agreed .to pay for them, in the event that could not be included in the cost of the building, to be paid for by’Mr.

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

Related

Davis v. Blauschild
6 La. App. 487 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 So. 783, 152 La. 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garson-bros-v-wilson-la-1922.