School Directors v. Roberson

Appellate Court of Illinois

School Directors v. Roberson

65 Ill. App. 298, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 1007

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 18, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 Ill. App. 298 (School Directors v. Roberson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

School Directors v. Roberson, 65 Ill. App. 298, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 1007 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sample

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee brought suit on a contract made to repair a school house, for which he was to be paid $128.85, “ provided the work is done in all particulars according to specifications and conditions of this contract,” and also to recover $8 on a verbal contract, made at a subsequent date, to put a new sill under the old part of the building, making a total claim of $136.85. The sum of $71 was paid on the written contract, which left a balance claimed to be due of $65.85. Appellee recovered a judgment for $17.50, from which appellants have taken this appeal, and claim in effect, that the amount of the recovery affirmatively shows the appellee did not perform the work “according to specifications and conditions of this contract,” which, it is insisted, is a prerequisite to the right of any recovery, and case Eldridge v. Rowe, 2 Gilm. 91, and Starkie on Ev., Vol. 2, pp. 96-97, are cited in support of this proposition. This is the general rule, but a “ building contract ” is an exception, as expressly held in Keela v. Herr, 157 Ill. 57, where it is said, if there is no willful departure from the terms of the contract and there has been a substantial compliance, these slight defects, caused by inadvertence or unintentional omissions, are not necessarily in the way of a recovery of the contract price, less the amount, by way of damages, requisite to indemnify the owner for the expense of conforming the work to that for which he contracted. The authorities cited show this is the current doctrine as to such contracts. The appellant got instructions in the line of its views, to which it was not entitled in the light of the authority above cited. This authority is conclusive of the main point made in this case. The jury allowed appellant $18.35 damages for non-compliance with the contract, and the record does not warrant us in saying this was not sufficient. The instruction given for appellee, when considered as a whole, is proper, and appellant has no cause of complaint, as before suggested, of the instructions modified by the court, which were given on its behalf.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Sample

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee brought suit on a contract made to repair a school house, for which he was to be paid $128.85, “ provided the work is done in all particulars according to specifications and conditions of this contract,” and also to recover $8 on a verbal contract, made at a subsequent date, to put a new sill under the old part of the building, making a total claim of $136.85. The sum of $71 was paid on the written contract, which left a balance claimed to be due of $65.85. Appellee recovered a judgment for $17.50, from which appellants have taken this appeal, and claim in effect, that the amount of the recovery affirmatively shows the appellee did not perform the work “according to specifications and conditions of this contract,” which, it is insisted, is a prerequisite to the right of any recovery, and case Eldridge v. Rowe, 2 Gilm. 91, and Starkie on Ev., Vol. 2, pp. 96-97, are cited in support of this proposition. This is the general rule, but a “ building contract ” is an exception, as expressly held in Keela v. Herr, 157 Ill. 57, where it is said, if there is no willful departure from the terms of the contract and there has been a substantial compliance, these slight defects, caused by inadvertence or unintentional omissions, are not necessarily in the way of a recovery of the contract price, less the amount, by way of damages, requisite to indemnify the owner for the expense of conforming the work to that for which he contracted. The authorities cited show this is the current doctrine as to such contracts. The appellant got instructions in the line of its views, to which it was not entitled in the light of the authority above cited. This authority is conclusive of the main point made in this case. The jury allowed appellant $18.35 damages for non-compliance with the contract, and the record does not warrant us in saying this was not sufficient. The instruction given for appellee, when considered as a whole, is proper, and appellant has no cause of complaint, as before suggested, of the instructions modified by the court, which were given on its behalf.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 Ill. App. 298, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 1007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/school-directors-v-roberson-illappct-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack