CARL J. BAUMGARTNER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE HEARN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a dispute over payment for construction work. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no reversible error in the admission of evidence related to a written agreement and a mortgage agreement, which were used to establish the amounts owed by the owner to the contractor.
The court held that both the written agreement, used to establish the amounts owed, and the mortgage agreement were admissible evidence. Therefore, there was no reversible error.
“The contract was admitted in evidence to show the admissions on the part of the owner that the contentions of the contractor as to the amounts due were correct.”
Establishes the purpose for which the written contract was admitted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff contractor sued the defendant owner for payment for work and materials furnished in constructing an apartment house. Initially, the cont…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Written Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant in error was plaintiff in the court belotv in a suit to enforce the payment by the defendant, plaintiff in error here, to' the plaintiff, defendant in error here, of a sum of money alleged to be due the plaintiff from the defendant for work done and material furn*868ished in the construction of an apartment house by the plaintiff for the defendant.
The record shows that the original contract between the parties was a verbal contract; that when about 80 per cent, of the work was completed the owner, defendant in the court below, appeared to find it hard to arrange his finances so as to pay the contractor and thereupon a written agreement was entered into under which the amounts due froln the defendant to the plaintiff, that is from the owner to the contractor, were agreed upon and the owner then and therein agreed to secure the balance due from him to the contractor by a certain mortgage on the building and lot, which mortgage was to mature eight years after date.
When the building was co'mpleted the owner failed and refused to execute the mortgage in accordance with the terms of his agreement. After some delay, the contractor filed suit to enforce the payment, relying upon his initial contract and parol agreements as a basis for his recovery.
During the course of the trial the written contract was introduced for the purpose of showing the amounts agreed upon between the parties which was and would be due from the owner to the contractor upon the completion of the work. The contract was admitted in evidence to show the admissions on the part of the owner that the contentions of the contractor as to the amounts due were correct. Hazen vs. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 Sou. 853.
The agreement for the mortgage was admissible in evidence for the purposes for which it was offered.
The record discloses no reversible error and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J. and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Wi-iitfield, P.J. and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.