Graves v. Construction Engineers, Inc.

D.C. Circuit

Graves v. Construction Engineers, Inc.

70 F.2d 754, 63 App. D.C. 150, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4296

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 1934

DocketNo. 6045

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 F.2d 754 (Graves v. Construction Engineers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Graves v. Construction Engineers, Inc., 70 F.2d 754, 63 App. D.C. 150, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4296 (D.C. Cir. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order confirming the auditor’s report in an action in equity by appellant, plaintiff below, to set aside certain contracts relating to the construction of improvements on houses belonging to the plaintiff. The court granted the relief prayed by the plaintiff, but held that she was liable for a commission paid the contractor by defendant company, and for “the actual value of the labor and material furnished by the defendant in connection with the construction of the building at the time of the suspension of the work.”

The case was referred by the court to the auditor for the purpose of stating an account between the defendant and plaintiff, in accordance with the order of the court. The auditor found that the commission paid amounted to $189.38; and that the actual value of.the labor and material furnished in connection with the construction work performed on the building, at the time of the suspension of the work, was $287.50;

From an order confirming the report of the auditor, this appeal was taken.

From a careful examination of the record, we think a statement of the facts disclosed by the evidence would serve no useful purpose? This ease is well within the rule of law that the findings of fact by the auditor of the lower court are to be considered as presumptively correct; and unless obvious error is shown in the application of the law, or some important mistake has been made in the consideration of the evidence, a decree of court ratifying the report will not be disturbed. Hutchins v. Munn, 209 U. S. 246, 28 S. Ct. 504, 52 L. Ed. 776; Nash v. Milford, 33 App. D. C. 142; Consaul v. Cummings, 24 App. D. C. 36.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order confirming the auditor’s report in an action in equity by appellant, plaintiff below, to set aside certain contracts relating to the construction of improvements on houses belonging to the plaintiff. The court granted the relief prayed by the plaintiff, but held that she was liable for a commission paid the contractor by defendant company, and for “the actual value of the labor and material furnished by the defendant in connection with the construction of the building at the time of the suspension of the work.”

The case was referred by the court to the auditor for the purpose of stating an account between the defendant and plaintiff, in accordance with the order of the court. The auditor found that the commission paid amounted to $189.38; and that the actual value of.the labor and material furnished in connection with the construction work performed on the building, at the time of the suspension of the work, was $287.50;

From an order confirming the report of the auditor, this appeal was taken.

From a careful examination of the record, we think a statement of the facts disclosed by the evidence would serve no useful purpose? This ease is well within the rule of law that the findings of fact by the auditor of the lower court are to be considered as presumptively correct; and unless obvious error is shown in the application of the law, or some important mistake has been made in the consideration of the evidence, a decree of court ratifying the report will not be disturbed. Hutchins v. Munn, 209 U. S. 246, 28 S. Ct. 504, 52 L. Ed. 776; Nash v. Milford, 33 App. D. C. 142; Consaul v. Cummings, 24 App. D. C. 36.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 F.2d 754, 63 App. D.C. 150, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graves-v-construction-engineers-inc-cadc-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack