Citation Numbers: 1 N.J. Misc. 174
Filed Date: 3/5/1923
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/25/2022
This is defendant’s rule to show cause why plaintiff’s verdict for $5,000 should not be set aside.
The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract whereby the plaintiff was to build a building for the defendant. As that contract originally stood, the defendant reserved to himself certain tile work, and in the contract the plaintiff had to do the heating work. Subsequently, and before the contract-was actually signed, it was modified, whereby the plaintiff undertook to do the tile work, and the defendant took over the heating work.
This action is to recover two elements of compensation- — ■ the first is for extras over and above the contract; the other to recover upon a special contract said to have been made after the contract was signed, based upon what plaintiff claims was a misrepresentation by the defendant as to the cost of this tile work, and an agreement between them at that time that he should go ahead and that the defendant would pay the difference. And as to this special contract the plaintiff’s
We have no doubt, however, that under the evidence there was a fair jury question presented respecting plaintiff’s right to recover upon this so-called special contract, but the recovery on this phase of the case was necessarily limited by the proofs to a sum not exceeding $1,759.
It remains to consider the claim for extras. Without going into the evidence or figures in detail,'it is sufficient to say that upon no reasonable view of the evidence can a verdict for extras be sustained for more than $1,330.75.
Since upon no reasonable view of the evidence could a verdict in excess of $3,089.75 be reached, it follows that the verdict of $5,000 is without evidence to justify it and is excessive.
The rule will be made absolute.