TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Clark v. Marsiglia

Clark v. Marsiglia, 1 Denio 317 (1845)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · State Specialty Courts
Decided
July 15, 1845
Citations
1 Denio 317
Cited by 65
Headnotes
The measure of damages against a party who employed another to do certain mechanical work at a priée agreed upon, and who has countermanded his directions and forbidden the further execution of the work, after it had been commenced, is not the whole amount agreed to be paid, but a just recompense for such injury as the party employed has sustained on account of the hreach of the ^agreement. The party so employed has no right to proceed with the work aft® such countermand.
Summary
Error from the New-York common pleas. Marsiglia sued Clark in the court below in assumpsit, for work, labor and'materials, in cleaning, repairing and improving sundry paintings belonging to the defendant. The defendant pfeaded non assumpsit. The plaintiff proved that a number of paintings were delivered to him by the defendant to clean and repair, at certain prices for each. They were delivered upon two occasions. As to the first parcel, for the repairing of which the price was seventy-five dollars, no defence was offered. In respect to the other, for which the plaintiff charged one hundred and fifty-six dollars, the defendant gave evidence tending to shew that after the plaintiff had commenced work upon them, he desired him-l not to go on, as he had concluded not to have the work done. 1 The plaintiff, notwithstanding, finished the • cleaning and repairing of the pictures, and claimed to recover for doing the whole, and for the materials furnished, insisting that the defendant had no right to countermand the order which he had given. The defendant’s counsel requested the court to charge that he had the right to countermand his instructions for the work, and that the plaintiff could not recover for any work done after such countermand. The court declined' to charge as requested, but, on the contrary, instructed the jury that inasmuch as the plaintiff had commenced the work before the order was revoked, he had a right to finish it, and to recover the whole value of his labor and for the materials furnished. The jury found their verdict accordingly, and the defendant’s counsel excepted. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The question does not arise as to the right of the defendant below to take away these pictures, upon which the plaintiff had performed some labor, without payment for what he had done, and his damages for the violation of the contract, and upon that point we express no opinion. The plaintiff was allowed to recover as though there had been no countermand of the order; and in this the court erred. The defendant, by requiring the plaintiff to stop work upon the paintings, violated his contract, and thereby incurred a liability to pay such damages as the plaintiff should- sustain. Such damages would include a recompense for the labor done and materials used, and such further sum in -damages as might, upon legal principles, be assessed for the breach of the contract: but the plaintiff had no right, by obstinately persisting in the work, to make the -penalty upon the defendant greater than it would otherwise have been.

To hold that one who employs another to do a piece of work *319 is bound to suffer it to be done at all events, would sometimes lead to great injustice. A man may hire another to labor for a year, and within the year his situation may be such as to render the work entirely useless to him. The party employed cannot persist in working, though he is entitled to the damages consequent upon his disappointment. So if one hires another to build a house, and subsequent events put it out of his power to pay for it, it is commendable in him to stop the work, and pay for what has been done and the damages sustained by the contractor. He may be under a necessity to change his residence ; but upon the rule contended for, he would be obliged to have a house which he did not need and could not use. In all such cases the just claims of the party employed are satisfied when he is fully recompensed for his part performance and indemnified for his loss in respect to the part left unexecuted ; and to persist in accumulating a larger demand is not consistent with good’ faith towards the employer. The judgment must be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 65 cases

View all citing references →
1846–1847: 11848–1849: 21850–1851: 21852–1853: 11854–1855: 11856–1857: 11858–1859: 11862–1863: 11864–1865: 11866–1867: 11868–1869: 21870–1871: 21872–1873: 21874–1875: 21876–1877: 11878–1879: 31880–1881: 41884–1885: 21890–1891: 41892–1893: 11894–1895: 21896–1897: 31898–1899: 21900–1901: 51902–1903: 71904–1905: 11908–1909: 11910–1911: 11912–1913: 21918–1919: 11932–1933: 11934–1935: 11936–1937: 11958–1959: 11962–1963: 118462026peak 1902 · 7

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Durkee v. Mott8 Barb. 423 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1850)
  2. Black v. Woodrow39 Md. 194 (1874)
  3. Jones v. Dunton7 Ill. App. 580 (1880)
  4. Carey v. Gnant59 Barb. 574 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1871)
  5. Queen City Electric Light Co. v. Gibson House Co.4 Ohio N.P. 119 (Oh. Super. Ct., Cinci. 1897)
  6. Howard v. Daly61 N.Y. 362 (1875)

Most recent

  1. Gasparini Excavating Co. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission187 A.2d 157 (Pa. 1963)
  2. Gaylord Builders, Inc. v. Richmond Metal Mfg. Corp.140 A.2d 358 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
  3. Harris Structural Steel Co. v. Chapman162 Misc. 709 (1937)
  4. Henry Shenk Co. v. Erie County178 A. 662 (Pa. 1935)
  5. Superior Incinerator Co. v. Tompkins59 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1933)
  6. King v. Rhodes47 App. D.C. 316 (D.C. Cir. 1918)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list