Rawson v. Clark

Citations

• 70 Ill. 656

Syllabus

<p>1. Contract—when full performance prevented. Where a party, under a contract with the owner of a building, then being erected, to manufacture and put into the building certain iron work, had completed the work, except putting it into the house, and was prevented from so doing by the owner not being ready with the other work to receive the iron work, and the building was burned before the work could be done after notice: Reid, that as the workman was no way in default, up to the time of the destruction of the building, and there being no building provided afterwards to receive the work, he was entitled to recover under the common counts for the material manufactured and labor done.</p> <p>2. Same—estimate of architect. Where a party sought to recover the price of certain iron work manufactured for a building, which he was to put up and be paid for upon the estimate of an architect, the building having been destroyed by fire before the same could be put up, and the workman being in no default, it was held, that the case contemplated for the architect’s certificate never arose, and that a recovery-could be had without it, according to the contract price for the iron work manufactured.</p> <p>3. Same—construed as to risk. Where a contractor agreed to manufacture the iron work for a house being built, and put up the same, the work to he at his risk until the building was completed, it was held, that the manufacturer did not assume the risk of the building, which was destroyed, hut only his materials furnished, and therefore that the destruction of the building by fire did not operate to prevent him from recovering the price of the iron work manufactured and ready to be delivered.</p>