Garfield v. Huls

Citations

• 54 Ill. 427

Syllabus

<p>1. Contracts—work improperly done—damages resulting thes'efrom. In an action to recover the price for threshing a lot of clover seed by the plaintiff for the defendant, it was kdd, if the plaintiff was employed for that purpose he was bound to execute it in a workmanlike manner, and if, through his negligence, want of skill, or defective machinery, the work was done in such manner that the defendant suffered damage thereby, the amount of such damage should be deducted from the price agreed to be paid for the work.</p> <p>2. And though the defendant may have accepted the work done, without complaint at the time, but without having an opportunity of inspection, still it was competent for him to show the defective character of the machinery, and of the work done, and his defense could be made available to the extent of the damage suffered by him on account thereof.</p> <p>3. Question or law or ract—waiver. Where the defendant in an action for work and labor, seeks to defend on the ground that the work ivas so unskillfully and negligently done that he has suffered damage by reason thereof, it is improper for the court to instruct the jury that the presence of the defendant while the work was being done, and his failure to complain at the time, amounted to a waiver of such defense. The effect of those facts, if they existed, should be determined by the jury, not by the court.</p>