Yeisley v. Bundel

Citations

• 1 Monag. 67
• 15 A. 854
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 740

Syllabus

<p>On a sci. fa. sur mechanic’s lien, the claimant proved the value of his work, in the erection of two houses, to be §1084, admitted payment on account to the amount of §806, and claimed the balance. The defendant produced a written contract whereby the claimant agreed to do the work for §525, “ and, should more than the ordinary superintendence usually given by the carpenter be required, the contractor to receive an additional allowance of §25, cash, to be paid as the work progresses.” The defendant testified that he had paid more than the contract price, on account of delay and in order to get his house completed without employing another carpenter. The claimant, in rebuttal, testified that the sum mentioned in the contract was not intended to be binding, but was fixed at the defendant’s request so that he could show the contract to his wife and satisfy her for not giving the work to her brother-in-law. The contract was signed Feb. 19, 1883. The plaintiff testified, and the defendant admitted, that, by Aug. 18, seven payments had been made aggregating §575, and that fifteen further payments were made, from time to time, until March 1,1884, two days before the work was finished, and that the defendant was present as the work progressed. The defendant contradicted the plaintiff’s testimony as to the contract, and no other witness was offered in corroboration. Held, that the parol evidence was insufficient to vary the written contract, and that there weré no corroborating circumstances equivalent to a second witness.</p> <p>A question, asked of the plaintiff, whether or not the defendant, in the progress of the work, ever said anything to the plaintiff with reference to the alleged contract, was properly excluded.</p>