Skip to main content
· 9/15/1867

Chicago & Great Eastern Railway Co. v. Vosburgh

Citations

  • 45 Ill. 311

Syllabus

<p>1. Contract—compensation—parol evidence. Where a contract is made for doing work, in which the compensation is fixed, parol evidence cannot be admitted to show the work was of less value. The compensation, being a part of the agreement, cannot be altered or varied.</p> <p>2. If other work is done than that embraced in or provided, for by the agreement, and of a character, the value of which cannot be fixed by the price agreed to he paid by the contract, then it is competent to show what the extra work was worth.</p> <p>3. Same—construction. Where a builder undertakes to construct a building according to a plan, which is afterward changed by agreement of the parties, so as to require more materials and labor than was specified, and no agreement was made in reference to the price of extra work, it would be inferred, that the price agreed in the original contract would govern in determining the compensation,</p> <p>4. If the plan under which work was to be done by contract was so changed as to embrace some other description of work not contemplated by the original contract, then the contractor would he entitled to recover according to the reasonable worth of such extra work.</p> <p>5. Where a contract for building an embankment was silent as to where the contractor was to get the earth, and the parties themselves gave a construction of it, they will be bound by it.</p> <p>6. New tbials—juries. It is the province of the jury to weigh and consider all the evidence, and to give it, and each part of it, such weight as they may deem it entitled to receive.</p> <p>7. The court will not disturb the verdict of a jury where there is a conflict of evidence, and the verdict is not manifestly against the evidence.</p> <p>8. Same — surprise. In applications for new trials on the ground of surprise, it is not only necessary that the party was surprised, but that it was in a material matter, and that it produced injury; and that it was not the consequence of neglect or inattention

Judges: Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.