Hampson v. Lewis ex rel. Marshall, Bingham & Bradford

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Under the contract in this case, which was merely by parol, the parties not having signed any written agreement, the complainant engaged to plaster the five houses of the respondent for some fifteen hundred dollars. All the necessary materials, such as laths, lime and hair, &c., to be provided, and had ready as needed, by the respondent—the complainant, according to the tenor ¹⁸⁰ and effect of the contract, to go on with all reasonable dispatch to complete the worlf. The complainant having other work, and respondent other engagements, it seems to have been left very much to the mutual convenience of the parties to proceed with the work as they were respectively inclined.

At all events this rmrst be its substantial interpretation, as the verbal stipulations are not sufficiently definite to make the contract more binding, as to the time of furnishing the materials or progress of the work after they were on hand. Certainly the proof of the contract is not clear as to when the work was to be done—the effect of the complainant’s obligation, would require him to do it in a reasonable time. It appears it was to be paid for as it progressed, according to the convenience of the respondent, and entirely when completed. With this loose understanding, the complainant commenced the work, and after completing three of the houses, and some partial work on the others, and receiving some six hundred and fifty dollars, abandoned the work because of alleged failure on the part of the respondent to furnish the necessary