Williametz v. Lampman

Connecticut Superior Court

Williametz v. Lampman

226 A.2d 109, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 429, 26 Conn. Supp. 429, 1966 Conn. Super. LEXIS 151

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 18, 1966

DocketFile 144855

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.2d 109 (Williametz v. Lampman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williametz v. Lampman, 226 A.2d 109, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 429, 26 Conn. Supp. 429, 1966 Conn. Super. LEXIS 151 (Colo. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Palmer, J.

The first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that on September 10, 1959, the defendant Clifton, Inc., hereinafter called Clifton, entered into a contract with the defendant Lamp-man for the construction of a certain roadway or roadways and other work in connection with Croydon Drive. On the same day the plaintiffs entered into a contract with defendant Lampman for certain work to be performed in connection with the above-mentioned contract between defendant Clifton and defendant Lampman. On September 16, 1959, the plaintiffs undertook to supply certain labor and/or materials in connection with its contract. The work was performed and materials were delivered at the request of the defendants and constituted a benefit to them for which they expected to pay and for which the plaintiffs expected to he paid.

Whatever factual situation may develop upon the trial of this case, for the purposes of the demurrer to the first count we are limited to the allegations *430 of the first count. The plaintiffs allege the performance of work and the delivery of materials “at the request of” all three defendants. (Italics supplied.) “In the absence of circumstances indicating otherwise, it is inferred that a person who requests another to perform services for him thereby bargains to pay for the services rendered.” 58 Am. Jur. '512, Work and Labor, § 3; Restatement, Restitution §107 (2); 98 C.J.S., Work and Labor, §11 (b).

As the first count clearly alleges a cause of action for work done and materials furnished, the defendants’ demurrer thereto must be, and it hereby is, overruled.

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

Palmer, J.

The first count of the plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that on September 10, 1959, the defendant Clifton, Inc., hereinafter called Clifton, entered into a contract with the defendant Lamp-man for the construction of a certain roadway or roadways and other work in connection with Croydon Drive. On the same day the plaintiffs entered into a contract with defendant Lampman for certain work to be performed in connection with the above-mentioned contract between defendant Clifton and defendant Lampman. On September 16, 1959, the plaintiffs undertook to supply certain labor and/or materials in connection with its contract. The work was performed and materials were delivered at the request of the defendants and constituted a benefit to them for which they expected to pay and for which the plaintiffs expected to he paid.

Whatever factual situation may develop upon the trial of this case, for the purposes of the demurrer to the first count we are limited to the allegations *430 of the first count. The plaintiffs allege the performance of work and the delivery of materials “at the request of” all three defendants. (Italics supplied.) “In the absence of circumstances indicating otherwise, it is inferred that a person who requests another to perform services for him thereby bargains to pay for the services rendered.” 58 Am. Jur. '512, Work and Labor, § 3; Restatement, Restitution §107 (2); 98 C.J.S., Work and Labor, §11 (b).

As the first count clearly alleges a cause of action for work done and materials furnished, the defendants’ demurrer thereto must be, and it hereby is, overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.2d 109, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 429, 26 Conn. Supp. 429, 1966 Conn. Super. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williametz-v-lampman-connsuperct-1966.