Donlin v. Daegling

Citations

• 80 Ill. 608

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—poro?, to supply defect in written contract from its generality. It is competent for the parties to a written contract to supply any supposed defect in the contract, as to the quantity of the work to be done, by parol testimony.</p> <p>2. Where a party contracted, in writing, to do the mason work in rebuilding a court house which had been burned, the walls still standing, according to plans and specifications to be furnished, the contract failing to show how much of the old wall was to be taken down and rebuilt, it was held, that parol evidence was admissible to show the extent of the work as contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was made, and that such testimony did not vary the written agreement.</p> <p>3. Contract—Ka&fMy for extra work. Where a contractor to rebuild a burnt court house employed a mason to do all the mason work necessary to make the walls as good as they were before the fire, according to plans and specifications to be furnished, and the specifications showed a certain line to which the brick walls should be taken down and rebuilt, and when such line was reached the contractor required the mason to take down more wall to reach solid masonry, which was done: Held, that the contractor was liable to the mason for the reasonable worth of such extra work, caused by taking down more of the walls.</p>