I. & G. N. R. R. v. Hutchins

Court of Appeals of Texas

I. & G. N. R. R. v. Hutchins

1 White & W. 123

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 14, 1882

DocketNo. 2260, R. Book No. 4, p. 267

StatusPublished

This text of 1 White & W. 123 (I. & G. N. R. R. v. Hutchins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

I. & G. N. R. R. v. Hutchins, 1 White & W. 123 (Tex. Ct. App. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 303. Privity of contract. Hutchins sued the I. & G. N. R. R. Co., Ross & Harris, Ricker, Lee & Co. and D. W. Smith upon an account for $160.60. Ross & Harris were contractors of the railroad company, constructing its line of road; Ricker, Lee & Co. were sub-contractors under Ross & Harris, and D. W. Smith was a sub-contractor under Ricker, Lee & Co. Hutchins furnished a laborer and a pair of mules to work, on the road for Smith, and for which Smith agreed to pay $3.50 per day. Ricker, Lee & Co. had fully paid Smith. Smith never paid Hutchins, and Hutchins sued all the parties for what was due him on. his contract with Smith ($160.60). Held, that there was no privity-of contract shown between Hutchins and any of the defendants except Smith. Where work is done under contract, with a sub-contractor, and on account of such sub-contractor, there is no liability on the part of the owner or principal contractor, except to the party with whom they contracted. [Sens v. Trentune, 54 Tex. 218; Poole v. Sanford, 52 Tex. 621; [124]*124Holmes v. Shands, 26 Miss. 639; Pelanne v. Coudreau, 16 La Ann. 127; I. B. & W. R. R. Co. v. O’Reiley, 38 Ind. 140; Phillips on Mech. Liens, sec. 116.]

October 14, 1882.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 303. Privity of contract. Hutchins sued the I. & G. N. R. R. Co., Ross & Harris, Ricker, Lee & Co. and D. W. Smith upon an account for $160.60. Ross & Harris were contractors of the railroad company, constructing its line of road; Ricker, Lee & Co. were sub-contractors under Ross & Harris, and D. W. Smith was a sub-contractor under Ricker, Lee & Co. Hutchins furnished a laborer and a pair of mules to work, on the road for Smith, and for which Smith agreed to pay $3.50 per day. Ricker, Lee & Co. had fully paid Smith. Smith never paid Hutchins, and Hutchins sued all the parties for what was due him on. his contract with Smith ($160.60). Held, that there was no privity-of contract shown between Hutchins and any of the defendants except Smith. Where work is done under contract, with a sub-contractor, and on account of such sub-contractor, there is no liability on the part of the owner or principal contractor, except to the party with whom they contracted. [Sens v. Trentune, 54 Tex. 218; Poole v. Sanford, 52 Tex. 621; [124]*124Holmes v. Shands, 26 Miss. 639; Pelanne v. Coudreau, 16 La Ann. 127; I. B. & W. R. R. Co. v. O’Reiley, 38 Ind. 140; Phillips on Mech. Liens, sec. 116.]

October 14, 1882.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 White & W. 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/i-g-n-r-r-v-hutchins-texapp-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack