Laver v. Hotaling

Citations

• 115 Cal. 613
• 47 P. 593
• 1897 Cal. LEXIS 481

Syllabus

<p>Assumpsit for Reasonable Value of Services—Evidence—Customary Rates of Architects—Rule of Association.—In an action by architects to recover the alleged reasonable value of services performed, evidence as to the customary charges of architects for similar services is admissible to prove the value of the plaintiff’s services; and although upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, and on the direct examination of his own witnesses, the defendant brought out the fact that the customary rates of charges made by architects originated in, and conformed to, a rule established by an association of architects, which rule as such was not binding upon the defendant, such fact does not render the evidence of the plaintiff incompetent, and the action of the trial court in admitting the evidence as to the customary charges, upon behalf of the plaintiff, and in refusing to strike it out after the defendants had proved the rule of architects, is not erroneous.</p> <p>Id.—Quantum Meruit—Proof of Customary Rate—Ignorance of Employer Immaterial.—The customary rate of compensation for services of a like nature is competent evidence of the value of tl^e services of an employee in an action against his employer upon a quantum meruit, regardless of the fact as to whether the employer is ignorant or not of the customary rate of compensation.</p> <p>New Trial—-Error in Favor of Moving Party.—A party against whom judgment has been rendered in an action is not entitled to a new trial because of an error in the admission of testimony offered by him.</p> <p>Id.—Support of Order Granting New Trial—Misleading Instruction—Want of Specification or Exception.—A misleading instruction of the court to the jury, the giving of which was not specified as a ground of the motion for a new trial, and which was not excepted to at the time it was given, cannot support an order granting a new trial, though it may have been misleading.</p>