Holmes v. Stummel
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, for work and labor done, commenced by the appellee against the appellant, in the Circuit Court of Marshall county. The cause was tried before Ballou, Judge, and a jury, at the May term, 1858, of said Circuit Court, and a verdict and judgment against the appellant, in favor of the appellee, for $262.13, to reverse which judgment, the said appellant brings this cause into this court.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, for work and labor done, commenced by the appellee against the appellant, in the Circuit Court of Marshall county. The cause was tried before Ballou, Judge, and a jury, at the May term, 1858, of said Circuit Court, and a verdict and judgment against the appellant, in favor of the appellee, for $262.13, to reverse which judgment, the said appellant brings this cause into this court. There had been a written contract between the parties, in reference to grubbing a piece of land. The controversy arose about the manner of doing the work, and the quantity of work…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The general rule in suing upon a special contract is, that a party cannot recover unless he shows that he has performed the contract substantially, or having performed part, and the balance waived or prevented by the other party, and the part performed has been accepted and appropriated. In either of which cases, he can recover for what he has done, the measure of damages being the contract price agreed to be paid in proportion to the whole work.
When the suit is brought upon a general indebitatus assumpsit, for work and labor, the defendant may defend, by showing a special contract, and the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Walker v. BrownIllinois Supreme Court · 1862
- Wilson v. BaumanIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Amsler v. BrunerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1912
- Spencer v. DoughertyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1887
- Phelps v. HubbardIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.