Linebaugh v. Townes

Michigan Court of Appeals

Linebaugh v. Townes

156 N.W.2d 39, 9 Mich. App. 185, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 416

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 7, 1967

DocketDocket 493

StatusPublished

This text of 156 N.W.2d 39 (Linebaugh v. Townes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Linebaugh v. Townes, 156 N.W.2d 39, 9 Mich. App. 185, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 416 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, J.

Plaintiff-builder sued defendants-owners for tbe balance allegedly due on a borne building contract. Tbe defendants counterclaimed on tbe grounds tbat tbe contract was not completed and, additionally, tbat a portion of tbe completed work was not performed in a workmanlike manner, wbicb required tbe defendants to bave corrections made. A nonjury trial resulted in judgment for tbe defendants. Following a motion filed by tbe plaintiff to amend tbe judgment or grant a new trial, tbe defendants stipulated as to certain credits and tbe court denied tbe plaintiff’s motion but allowed tbe stipulated credits, leaving a balance due defendants of $1,275.07 plus costs. Plaintiff appeals.

Tbe sole issue raised on appeal is whether tbe defendants are entitled to a credit against tbe construction contract of an amount equal to 10% of tbe total contract. * This issue arises from plaintiff’s claim tbat tbe court erred in crediting defendants with 10% of tbe contract price after having allowed tbe defendants credit for items of work not performed in a workmanlike manner. Plaintiff contends tbat in effect tbe trial judge allowed tbe defendants double damages. This claim can be established only by demonstrating tbat tbe 10% credit given for tbe portion of tbe contract not completed already bad been accounted for in tbe credit given for items of improperly performed work.

*187 Tbe trial judge made specific findings of fact not questioned by plaintiff. A review of tbe record, including tbe findings made by tbe trial court, does not persuade us that tbe court was clearly in error. GrCR 1963, 517.1.

Affirmed. Costs to appellees.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn, J., concurred.

*

At trial the county building inspector testified that the building, according to the plans and specifications, was approximately 90% completed by the plaintiff.

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

J. H. Gillis, J.

Plaintiff-builder sued defendants-owners for tbe balance allegedly due on a borne building contract. Tbe defendants counterclaimed on tbe grounds tbat tbe contract was not completed and, additionally, tbat a portion of tbe completed work was not performed in a workmanlike manner, wbicb required tbe defendants to bave corrections made. A nonjury trial resulted in judgment for tbe defendants. Following a motion filed by tbe plaintiff to amend tbe judgment or grant a new trial, tbe defendants stipulated as to certain credits and tbe court denied tbe plaintiff’s motion but allowed tbe stipulated credits, leaving a balance due defendants of $1,275.07 plus costs. Plaintiff appeals.

Tbe sole issue raised on appeal is whether tbe defendants are entitled to a credit against tbe construction contract of an amount equal to 10% of tbe total contract. * This issue arises from plaintiff’s claim tbat tbe court erred in crediting defendants with 10% of tbe contract price after having allowed tbe defendants credit for items of work not performed in a workmanlike manner. Plaintiff contends tbat in effect tbe trial judge allowed tbe defendants double damages. This claim can be established only by demonstrating tbat tbe 10% credit given for tbe portion of tbe contract not completed already bad been accounted for in tbe credit given for items of improperly performed work.

*187 Tbe trial judge made specific findings of fact not questioned by plaintiff. A review of tbe record, including tbe findings made by tbe trial court, does not persuade us that tbe court was clearly in error. GrCR 1963, 517.1.

Affirmed. Costs to appellees.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn, J., concurred.

*

At trial the county building inspector testified that the building, according to the plans and specifications, was approximately 90% completed by the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.W.2d 39, 9 Mich. App. 185, 1967 Mich. App. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linebaugh-v-townes-michctapp-1967.