Curtis v. Smith
48 Vt. 116 (1874)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party cannot recover for labor performed on its own materials or for materials furnished under common counts (e.g., quantum meruit) if the completed work or materials have not been delivered to and benefited the defendant, even if the defendant wrongfully terminated the contract; the proper remedy in such cases is a special declaration for damages sustained by the breach of contract.
Facts:
- The plaintiff and defendants entered into a contract for the plaintiff to build certain wing walls around the defendants' bakery at a specified price per yard.
- Before the time arrived for the plaintiff to commence erecting the wing walls, the plaintiff began quarrying stone from his own quarry to be used in the construction.
- The defendants subsequently notified the plaintiff not to proceed under the contract, thereby terminating it.
- The stone quarried by the plaintiff was not on the defendants' land, and the defendants received no benefit from this labor or material.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff brought an action of assumpsit on the common counts against the defendants in a trial court.
- The trial court allowed the plaintiff to recover for his labor in quarrying stone under the common count for labor done and performed.
- The defendants requested that the trial court rule against the plaintiff's right to recover for this item under the common counts, but the court did not comply with this request.
- The trial court charged the jury on the subject of damages, allowing the plaintiff to recover the value of his labor in quarrying the stone.
- The defendants appealed the judgment of the trial court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff who has performed labor on his own materials, intended for a specific article or perfected work contracted to be delivered to the defendant, but which work or materials have not been delivered to or benefited the defendant due to the defendant's termination of the contract, have a right to recover for such labor under the common counts of assumpsit?
Opinions:
Majority - Ross, J.
No, a plaintiff cannot recover for such labor under the common counts of assumpsit. The court reasoned that recovery on common counts for work and labor done or for materials furnished requires showing that the plaintiff performed work or labor directly for the defendant at their request, or that the materials, in whole or in part, went to the benefit of the defendant upon a like request. When a plaintiff performs labor on his own material to produce a specific article or perfected work under a contract, and the completed work is never delivered so as to benefit the defendant, the labor performed is for the plaintiff himself, not for the defendant. The defendants in this case contracted for completed wing walls, not for the plaintiff’s labor in quarrying stone from his own quarry, which remained his property. Therefore, the plaintiff had performed no labor for the defendants or that had enured to their benefit under the contract. The proper remedy for a wrongful termination of a contract preventing completion and delivery is to declare specially for damages sustained by the breach of contract, not to recover on common counts for labor or materials. The court also noted that even if the declaration had been special, the trial court's instruction allowing the plaintiff to recover the value of his labor in quarrying the stone was erroneous, as the rule of damages for breach of contract is the amount the plaintiff has lost by the wrongful termination, accounting for any potential pecuniary value of the quarried stone itself.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the strict distinction between claims based on a specific contract and those under common counts (quasi-contractual claims based on unjust enrichment or benefit conferred). It establishes that common counts are not a catch-all remedy for breach of contract, particularly when the plaintiff's preparatory work on their own materials has not yet resulted in any direct benefit to the defendant. The decision reinforces the importance of proper pleading, requiring a specific breach of contract claim when the dispute arises from a broken promise rather than a benefit accepted, thus guiding future litigants on the appropriate form of action and demonstrating the limitations of quantum meruit recovery.
