Southern Painting Company of Tennessee v. United States ex rel. Silver
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
222 F.2d 431 (1955)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Southern Painting Company of Tennessee, Inc. (Southern) (defendant) hired E. M. Silver (plaintiff) as a subcontractor. Under the subcontract, Silver was to furnish all labor and materials necessary for two construction projects, and Southern was to pay Silver a lump sum of $10,000 and a percentage of the net profit on certain additional work. Silver completed more than 90 percent of the work required under the subcontract. Silver argued that Southern breached the contract by refusing to allow Silver to complete the remaining work. Southern argued that Silver breached the contract by failing to complete the work. At the time the work stopped, Southern had paid Silver $7,000. Silver sued Southern and the United Pacific Insurance Company (defendant) for breach of contract, seeking a judgment of $72,000 for the reasonable value of work that Silver had performed under a theory of quantum meruit. An experienced plumbing contractor testified to the value of the services that Silver had provided to Southern. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas found that Southern had breached the contract and entered judgment in favor of Silver for $13,000, representing the value of Silver’s services provided, plus interest. Southern appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Huxman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
