delivered the opinion of the court.
The Municipal Court rendered a judgment for $877 in favor of appellee against appellant on the verdict of a jury, in аn effort to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellant argues, as reasons for reversal, that the contract sued upon was not its contract, but the obligation of the Mills Edisonia Company; that the Municipal Court erred in its rulings uрon the evidence, and that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence.
We are met at the threshold of this cause with the embarrassing fact that there is a similarity between the names of the two corporations involved in the liability sought tо be enforced; they are both “Mills” . corporations, and other elements of confusion lie in the fact that Herbert S, Mills was president of both corporations and that other persons were officers and interested in each of these corporations, and that both of them had some interest in the building in which the folding doors were to be installed by appellеe. It is fairly inferable from the evidence of both contestants, that the “Edisonia” Company had no financial reputation established in the business community, while the “Novelty” Company, appellant, had.
The evidence demonstrates that the cоntract was made by appellee with appellant. Morehouse, the architect of the building, was instructed by Mills, the prеsident of appellant, to have the contract made in the name of appellant and Law, the purchasing agent of appellant, with the knowledge and authority of its president, made the contract with appellee for аppellant. This contention of appellant smacks very much of an attempt to shift the burden of a binding obligation from а solvent concern upon a corporation of doubtful pecuniary responsibility.
The next question is, did appellee perform its contract sufficiently in accordance with its terms to entitle it to recover the amount due under the tеrms of the contract. The evidence shows that the doors contracted to be installed in appellant’s building were large and not of a usual or ordinary character. They were manufactured under a patent and were supposеd to work automatically, and therefore required a nicety of adjustment which would not admit of a departure from the еxact measurements of the spaces they were intended to inclose. The exact dimensions of these openings could not be ascertained except by actual measurement, and measurements could not be made until the openings were completed by the contractors having that part of the work in charge. As soon as the openings wеre completed, the measurements were made and the doors delivered at the building to be put in place within a rеasonable time thereafter.
Appellee is not responsible for delays in its.work occasioned solely by the act of a preceding contractor, and is only .required to proceed with reasonable dispatch and to furnish the doors as soon after the openings were finished ready for measurement as it could in the exercise of due diligenсe.
The evidence sustains appellant in its claim that the delays which occurred did not result from any dereliction on its part, but .establishes, on the contrary, as a fact that appellee proceeded with all reasonable disрatch to install the doors after it was able to procure the necessary measurements.
A careful examination of the evidence fails to disclose any erroneous rulings of the court affecting the merits or the justice of apрellant’s defenses.
The motion of appellant to instruct a verdict in its favor was not made in writing, nor was any written instruction tendеred. The ruling of the court may not therefore be reviewable on this appeal. W. C. St. Ry. Co. v. Foster,
When appellee started to install the doors, the architect of appellant interfered and stopped the workmen оf appellee from further proceeding, and took into his hands the task of completing the work. The expense оf so doing was allowed by the jury as a credit to appellant, the verdict being for the contract price less such expense. To this we see no cause of exception by appellant. It was in its favor.
The answers of the jurors to the special interrogatories propounded to them settle all the disputed questions of fact in favor of the aрpellee, and we are not only unable to say from the evidence in the record that such findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, but, on the contrary, are of the opinion that the findings of ultimate fаct by the jury are in harmony with the greater weight of the evidence. However, it is assigned for error, although not pressed upon us in argument, that the trial court erred in giving to the jury the special interrogatories propounded to them for answer. It is a well-settled rule of procedure in this jurisdiction that the trial court may, in its discretion, submit interrogatories to the jury which call for their findings of specific facts at the request of either party,' or on the court’s own initiative. Voigt v. Anglo Am. Provision Co.,
And as said in Town of Cicero v. Bartelme,
The judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.