TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Guenther v. Moffett

ELIZABETH J. GUENTHER, AND v. EDMUND M. MOFFETT AND MARY E. MOFFETT, HIS WIFE, AND

Guenther v. Moffett, 71 A. 153 (N.J. 1908)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 9, 1908
Judges
Garrison, Parker, Swayze
Citations
71 A. 15377 N.J.L. 20648 Vroom 2061908 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 66
Headnotes
A joint judgment against two defendants is indivisible, and, if erroneous as to one defendant, must be reversed in ioto. Peterson v. Traction Go., 42 Vroom 296, followed.
Summary
On appeal from District Court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Parker

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Parker, J.

The defendants in this case, husband and wife, seem to have made a contract with the plaintiff for the erection of a house on their property by the latter. There was a provision in the contract that no alterations or extra work *207 should be done without a written order from the owners approved by Frank C. Guenther, and an express agreement in writing as to the cost. Frank C. Guenther is the husband of the plaintiff. There was testimony in the case tending to show that certain extra work had been done at the request of Edmund M. Moffett and under his supervision, and on an examination of the evidence it would appear that there was sufficient to justify the trial judge in inferring that the above-quoted clause relating to extra work had been waived, and that there had been substantially a new contract between the parties by parol, but there is nothing in the evidence to show that Mary E. Moffett, the wife, had any knowledge of this work or waived the provision in the contract relating to extra work, or that her husband had been authorized in any way to waive it for her. No valid claim therefore was made out against Mary E. Moffett, and as to her the judgment must be reversed. This leads to a reversal of the entire judgment. Peterson v. Traction Co., 42 Vroom 296 .

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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