Maxwell & Delehomme v. Moore

50 So. 882, 163 Ala. 490, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 552
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 17, 1909·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

MoCLELLAN, j.

The contract here involved was for the furnishing of the material and the work and labor to apply it in painting a house for defendant (appellee). The contract was not fully performed by plaintiffs — on the contrary, was abandoned by them when approximately 15 per cent, of it was unperformed. The common counts, as here, cannot, under such circumstances, be employed to recover upon a quantum valebat or quantum meruit for the outlay made by plaintiffs.—Carbon Hill Co. v. Cunningham, 153 Ala. 573; 44 South. 1016; Martin v. Massie, 127 Ala. 504, 29 South. 31, and authorities therein cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

Dowdell,, C. J., and Anderson and Sayre, JJ., concur.

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

Maxwell & Delehomme v. Moore, 50 So. 882, 163 Ala. 490, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 552 (Ala. 1909).

50 So. 882 (Maxwell & Delehomme v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blythe v. Embry
61 So. 2d 142 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1952)
Howell v. Dodd
157 So. 211 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Zimmerman v. Western Builders & Salvage Co.
297 P. 449 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1931)
Varner v. Hardy
96 So. 860 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
McCormick v. Badham
85 So. 101 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Vere v. Rosafa
11 P.R. Fed. 325 (D. Puerto Rico, 1919)
Hartsell v. Turner
71 So. 658 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Graydon v. Buford
56 So. 77 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1911)