Gillespie Tool Co. v. Wilson , 123 Pa. 19 ( 1888 )

OPINION,

Mr. Justice Steerett:

Plaintiff company neither proved nor offered to prove such facts as would have warranted the jury in finding substantial performance of the contract embodied in the written proposition submitted to and accepted by the defendants. In several particulars the work contracted for was not done according to the plain terms of the contract. Nearly one half of the well was not reamed out, as required, to an eight inch diameter so as to admit 'five and five eighths inch casing in the clear. About 180 feet of the lower section of the well also was bored four or four and one quarter inches instead of five and five eighths inches in diameter. In neither of these particulars, nor in any other respect, was there any serious difficulty in the way of completing the work in strict accordance with the terms of the agreement. To have done so' would have involved nothing more than additional time and increased expense. The fact was patent, as well as proved by undisputed evidence, that a four and one quarter inch well would not discharge as much gas as one five and five eighths inches in diameter. It is no answer to say that for the purpose of testing the territory a four and one quarter inch well was as good as a five and five eighths inch well; nor that reaming out the well to the width and depth required by the contract would have subjected defendants to additional expense without any corresponding benefit. That was their own affair. They contracted for the boring of a well of specified depth, dimensions, etc., and they had a right to insist on at least a substantial performance of the contract according to its terms. That was not done, and the court was clearly right in refusing to submit the case to the jury on evidence that would not have warranted them in finding substantial performance of the contract.

The equitable doctrine of substantial performance is intended for the protection and relief of those who have faithfully and honestly endeavored to perform their contracts in all material and substantial particulars, so that their right to compensation may not be forfeited by reason of mere technical, inadvertent, or unimportant omissions or defects. It is incumbent on him who invokes its protection to present a case in which there has been no wilful omission or departure from the terms of his contract. If he fails to do so, the question of substantial performance should not be submitted to the jury.

The offers specified in the third, fourth and fifth assignments were rightly rejected. The proposed evidence was irrelevant and incompetent. There is nothing in the record that requires a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.