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

1 White & W. 123
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 14, 1882·No. No. 2260, R. Book No. 4, p. 267·Published

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

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

1 White & W. 123 (I. & G. N. R. R. v. Hutchins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pool v. Sanford
52 Tex. 621 (Texas Supreme Court, 1880)
Sens v. Trentune
54 Tex. 218 (Texas Supreme Court, 1881)
Indianapolis, Bloomington, & Western Railway Co. v. O'Reily
38 Ind. 140 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
Holmes v. Shands
26 Miss. 639 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1854)