81 Mo. 37 | Mo. | 1883
This was a suit on a building contract, and both parties have appealed from the circuit court and the court of appeals. The controversy has arisen about the
The plaintiffs as contractors, entered into a contract in writing with the defendant, wherein they undertook “ to do the ■ masonry in the Christian Brothers’ College, at Cote Brilliant, according to plans and specifications for the same, for the sum of two (2) dollars, in addition to the price of rock per perch.” The plaintiffs laid up all the masonry work of the building, which consisted of 3,41011-22 perches of “ rubble ” masonry and 1,365 4-22 perches of “ footings” masonry. They failed to furnish the rock required for this masonry, and the defendant purchased and paid for it to the quarrymen, who delivered it at the building at the price of $1.10 per perch for “rubble” rock, and $3.25 per perch for “footings” rock. There were 2,63811-22 perches of “rubble” rock, and 1,189 11-22 perches of “footings” rock, and the sum total of the bill for rock amounted to $6,768.12. The testimony, as conceded by both parties, shows that according to the custom prevailing at St. Louis, two methods of measurement are employed among builders, contractors and material men. The use and application of these two methods is determined by the subject to be measured, and the object to be arrived at in each case. In order to ascertain how much rock is contained in a building, so as to pay the demand of the quarryman, the measurer reckons corners only once, and excludes all openifigs for doors, windows, etc. In this method the actual amount of material contained in the wall is ascertained, and is called quarryman’s measure. In order to ascertain how much “ masonry” has been completed so as to pay the demand of the mason for laying the rock m the wall, a different measurement is employed. The measurer counts corners twice, each corner constituting a part of two intersecting walls. He also counts all openings for doors and windows as if they were solid masonry. This is the builder’s or mason’s measurement. The distinction between it and the quarry-man’s measurement, rests upon the additional labor in the
This custom of measurement rests upon good reasons, othei’wise, it would hardly have become the custom which it is admitted to be. The controversy springs from the two methods of measurement applied by the parties respectively, to the subject matter of the contract. Where there are no corners, doors or windows, the two measurements will produce the same number of perches. But where, as in this case, there were corners, doors and windows, the perches of “masonry” will exceed the perches of “rock.” In this ease the excess amounted to 94715-22 perches.- The defendant presents an account in which the method of measuring “masonry,” as established by custom, is entirely ignored. In this account the amount of rock according to quarryman’s measure, is stated, and the “masonry” finished by plaintiffs, is calculated at two dollars a perch, according to the same measurement applying to the rock. This method of computation brings the plaintiffs in debt to defendant in the sum of $1,177.33. The account stated under this method would stand as follows:
Dr.
To rubble rock placed in wall, 2,63811-22 perches at $2 per perch.........................................$5,277.00
To footings rock placed in wall, 1,18911-22 perches at $2 per perch......................................... 2,379.00
$7,656.00
Or.
By cash paid plaintiffs.................................... 8,733.33
By balance due defendant............................... $1,177.33
The plaintiffs insist that this result is erroneous and unjust, and I concur with them in this position. I do not think the masonry work of the plaintiffs, under this con
To “rubble masonry” 3,410 11-22 perches at $2, $1.10—$3.10 per perch.............................$10,572.55
To “footings masonry” 1,365 4-22 perches at $2, • $3.25—$5.25 per perch.............................. 7,167.18
.To total................................................$17,739.73
By cash to quarryman.....................$6,768.12
By cash to appellants..................... 8,733.33—-$15,501.45
To balance.............................................$ 2,238.28
According to this statement, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a judgment against the defendant, in the sum of $2,238.28, after allowing the admitted credits. The defendant insists that this would be erroneous and unjust, and I concur with it in this position. By this method of computation, the plaintiffs would receive pay for 772 perches of “rubble” rock, and 175 15-22 perches of “footings” rock more than actually in the wall, according to the measurement applicable to the material under the prevailing custom. Although the plaintiff furnished no rock at all, they would be receiving ovei $1,400 on account of such rock—-$1,400 more than the rock cost the defendant who did furnish it—$1,400 more than the market price of such rock, as charged and paid by defendant to the quarrymen. There ought to be no doubt about the terms of a contract which
To rubble masonry............................3,410 11-22 perches
To footings masonry...........................1,365 4-22 perches
Aggregate of perches..................4,775 15-22
At $2 per perch.............................................$9,557.48
By credits...................................................... 8,733.33
Balance duo plaintiffs...............................$ 818.15
Judgment for this sum was rendered in favor of plaintiffs with interest, increasing it to $834.51, which was affirmed in the court of appeals. I agree with these courts in their construction of the contract. Two things were provided for in its terms, rock for the walls and masonry labor in placing it there. If the plaintiffs had furnished both, they would have been entitled, under the contract, to be paid for both, according to the customs of measurement, applying to both respectively; the masonry would be paid for according to masonry measurements, at the contract price of $2 a perch; the rock would be paid for according to the quarryman’s measurement, at the exact cost, or market price for such material (which were in this instance identical). Not having furnished any rock, they are not entitled to charge against defendant either the cost or market price of such material. It was properly left out of the account as stated by the court. The misconstruction of this contract by the parties, has evidently arisen from the disconnected placing of a qualifying term, contained in the loose phraseology which was emyloyed. By a very slight transposition, the true meaning of the contract could- not be mistaken by any one. The plaintiffs undertook to do the