Hollis v. Chapman

Citations

• 36 Tex. 1

Syllabus

<p>1. In our practice all actions are special actions on the case, and a petition should set forth a full and clear statement of the cause of action, without ambiguity or contradiction, and should also state clearly the relief sought.</p> <p>2. Plaintiff sued on a quantum meruit for carpenter’s work done, and materials furnished in the completion of defendants’ house. Defendants answered that there was a special contract whereby plaintiff undertook to complete the job by a given time, for a specified gross sum ; that the house was consumed by fire before completion by the plaintiff, so that nothing ever became due to plaintiff ; and that more than two years h^d elapsed since the making of the contract and before the commencement of the suit, and, therefore, the action was barred by limitation, etc. Plaintiff, by amendment, adopted the special contract alleged by the defendants, but claimed that it was apportionable, etc. The house was burnt in December, 1866, and when plaintiff had nearly completed it ; the suit was brought in November, 1868 ; and the amended petition adopting the special contract was filed in January, 1869, and more than two years after the performance of the work and the destruction of the house. But held, that the amended petition did not set up a new cause of action, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not barred by limitation.</p> <p>3. Plaintiff, a carpenter, undertook to furnish materials, and do the woodwork necessary to finish defendants’ brick building, and to turn over the building, complete, by a given day, for a specified gross sum. When plaintiff had nearly completed the work, the building was destroyed by fire, without his fault. Held, in view of former decisions of this court, that the contract was apportionable, and plaintiff was entitled to recover for the materials furnished and work done by him.</p>