This is аn appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment against them and from an order denying their motion for new trial,
*586 A general statement of the facts of the case is as follows: In the month of July, 1908, the Berkeley Development Company was the owner of the land described in the complaint subject to a written contract to сonvéy to the defendant Elizabeth D. Roach upon payment of the sum of $1,750, this sum being payable in installments. In the month of July, 1911, the defendant named had paid on acсount of this sum $1,088.83, leaving a balance of $661.17 unpaid. The lot of land, it seems, had between the two dates mentioned appreciated in value in the sum of $750, making thе equity of Elizabeth D. Roach therein of the value of $1,838.83. At this time the defendant named made an assignment of her agreement with the Berkeley Development Company and conveyed all her right, title, and interest in and to the lot of land to the plaintiffs, whereupon the plaintiffs paid the, balance due ($661.17) to the devеlopment company, and received from it a deed to the lot. As part of the transaction between Elizabeth D. Roach and the plaintiffs they entеred into a written contract, whereby the latter were to erect within ninety working days a dwelling-house for the former according to certain plans and specifications. Under the terms of this contract the plaintiffs agreed to sell and convey to Elizabeth D. Roach (whom we will hereafter refer to as thе defendant) the lot and house to be erected thereon for the sum of $5,515, upon which sum was to be immediately credited the amount previously paid by the dеfendant upon the lot, to wit, $1,088.83, the balance to be paid in monthly installments, together with interest, and upon the completion of the payments the plaintiffs wеre to convey the premises to the defendant by good and sufficient deed, free from encumbrances.
The complaint is in the usual form to quiet title. The defendants filed an answer and cross-complaint, denying in their answer some of the allegations of the complaint, and setting forth in their cross-complaint in lеgal verbiage the details of the transaction between the parties. Demurrers to both the complaint and cross-complaint were overruled, аnd the plaintiffs put in an answer to the cross-complaint. The evidence introduced upon behalf of the defendants showed that the house erectеd by the plaintiffs under the contract above mentioned differed from the plans and specifications in many material and substantial respects; that omissiоns and devia *587 tions ran through the whole building and are practically irremediable.
Judgment went for the defendants for the sum of $1,838.83, with interest thereon in the sum of $186.64, and for their costs, the court further decreeing that upon payment to the defendant of the judgment the plaintiffs would be entitled to have their title to the premises quietеd against all claims of the defendants.
We cannot agree with the contention of the plaintiffs that the evidence fails to support the findings. The recоrd teems with evidence that the plaintiffs, in the erection of the house contracted for, departed grossly from the specifications. The court fоund, and the evidence shows, that the second floor of the house is not 8 feet in the clear as specified; that the basement is not 7 feet in the cleаr; that the foundation wall in the rear of the building is not level with the footings; that the underpinning is not 16 inches in centers; that the materials of which the building is constructed are nоt of the best kind, nor is it built in a workmanlike manner. An enumeration of the instances wherein the building as erected fails to comply with the plans and specifications fills about seven closely printed pages of the record; and the court concludes by finding that the house as constructed is less in value by one thousand dollars than it would have been if erected as agreed. Moreover, it appears to have been built in the improper manner described deliberаtely, and in spite of the constant protest of the defendants.
It appears to be settled law that courts of equity will not specifically enforcе building contracts where, as here, performance cannot be consummated by one transaction, and when the contract, according to its tеrms, requires a succession of acts and a protracted supervision, with special knowledge and skill in its oversight and management
(Stanton
v.
Singleton,
We perceive no merit in the plaintiffs’ further contention that their demurrers to the defendants’ answer and cross-complaint should have been sustained, for the reasоn that they do not show that the consideration moving to the plaintiffs under the agreement was adequate, and that the agreement as to them was just and reasonable. It is true that the defendants’ pleadings do not in terms allege the adequacy of the consideration nor the fairness of the agreement, but they dо in formal allegations set forth the facts constituting their defense and the circumstances under which both parties entered into the contract, and their stаtement of facts in this regard is sufficiently proof against the objection raised by the demurrer now referred to.
(Windsor
v.
Miner,
*589 ■ We have examined the other assigned errоrs, but find nothing in them that would warrant this court in reversing the judgment or order appealed from.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Lennon, P. J., and Richards, J., concurred.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on April 6, 1916.