Wheeden v. Fiske
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for work done, materials provided, and money paid, in building the defendants’ grist-mill and shed. The contract or agreement under which the plaintiff performed the-services was not reduced to writing, and, upon the trial, the parties did not agree as to its terms, — the plaintiff claiming that he was entitled to recover a fair compensation for building the mill; whether upon the ground that there was never any special contract for the' whole job, at a fixed…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for work done, materials provided, and money paid, in building the defendants’ grist-mill and shed. The contract or agreement under which the plaintiff performed the-services was not reduced to writing, and, upon the trial, the parties did not agree as to its terms, — the plaintiff claiming that he was entitled to recover a fair compensation for building the mill; whether upon the ground that there was never any special contract for the' whole job, at a fixed price, or upon the ground that such special contract, if it ever existed, had been rescinded, did not clearly appear; while…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The instructions are in three distinct branches, and present three distinct alternatives to the consideration of the jury, to each of which is assigned its peculiar standard of damages. To the first, a quantum meruit is assigned as the proper measure of damages for work done by the day simply; to the second, the contract price for the job, and in addition to that, a fair compensation, or quantum meruit, for extra work. This supposes the case of an original contract performed and fulfilled, and in addition thereto, other and independent work done, for which no price had been agreed upon. The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Merrill v. Ithaca & Owego Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Jewell v. SchroeppelNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- De Boom v. PriestlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1850
- Marsh v. RichardsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Jones v. WoodburyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1850
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Concrete Constructors, Inc. v. Harry Shapiro & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981
- New Life Mgmt. & Dev. v. Hillcrest ManorDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2012