76 Ind. App. 269 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1919
This action was instituted by appellees against appellants to recover damages for breach of contract. It is averred in the complaint that Springer, by a contract in writing, agreed to furnish the material and construct a cottage for Larkin Jones and his wife, in accordance with certain plans and specifications prepared by an architect; that to secure the faithful performance of the contract, Springer gave a bond with Thomas E. Moon as surety; that Springer failed and refused to construct the cottage as agreed and that in various respects the construction was not in accordance with the plans and specifications.
Each appellant filed answer in general denial. Verdict and judgment against both appellants for $375. The only alleged error presented is the overruling the motion for a new trial.
There are but two questions for our consideration: (1) Did the trial court adopt an erroneous theory of the measure of damages? (2) Did the court err in rendering judgment against the surety?
We perceive no reason why we should discuss the instructions given and refused. We have given them careful consideration and in our opinion there is no error in that respect.
Judgment affirmed.