James Stewart & Co. v. Fulton

Fifth Circuit

James Stewart & Co. v. Fulton

184 F. 719, 107 C.C.A. 382, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 3913

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 7, 1911·No. No. 2,108·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sues to recover for services rendered under a special contract. While he avers that they were extra services, he does not show, nor in fact claim, that they were extra in the sense of being other than the exact kind the contract called for.

When there is an express contract for a stipulated amount and mode of compensation and services, as is shown in1 this case, the plaintiff cannot abandon the contract and resort to an action for a quantum [720] meruit on an implied assumpsit. See 2 Bouv. Law Dict. verbo “Quantum meruit.”

Still less can he take all the advantages of the special contract, and at the same time claim for services clearly within the scope of it.

,The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sues to recover for services rendered under a special contract. While he avers that they were extra services, he does not show, nor in fact claim, that they were extra in the sense of being other than the exact kind the contract called for.

When there is an express contract for a stipulated amount and mode of compensation and services, as is shown in1 this case, the plaintiff cannot abandon the contract and resort to an action for a quantum [720] meruit on an implied assumpsit. See 2 Bouv. Law Dict. verbo “Quantum meruit.”

Still less can he take all the advantages of the special contract, and at the same time claim for services clearly within the scope of it.

,The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

James Stewart & Co. v. Fulton, 184 F. 719, 107 C.C.A. 382, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 3913 (5th Cir. 1911).

Pincite

184 F. 719 (James Stewart & Co. v. Fulton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.