Gatti v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance
Gatti v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
The liability of the plaintiff is limited to the price he agreed to pay. When the contractor died, Gatti, the owner, was liable only for such portion of the contract price as represented the work and material already furnished. It seems clear that when the owner has discharged such obligation, by payment under his contract with the contractor, anything fur
The surety cannot be charged with any voluntary payment the plaintiff may have made in excess of the legal liability. Hay v. McDonald, 131 Pacific 73.
To hold otherwise would permit plaintiff to maintain an action on defendant’s bond for the benefit of the contractor’s creditors. There is no privity between defendant and such creditors and the bond does not stipulate for the protection- of the contractor’s creditors. Rust v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 151 Pacific 249.
It appears that this plaintiff did make voluntary payments to the creditors of the contractor, Piland. It follows from what I have said that the defendant cannot be charged therefor. In estimating the amount of such voluntary payments it is proper to exclude the fair and reasonable value of any materials left on the premises by the contractor which were thereafter paid for by plaintiff and used in completing the building.
It follows that the exceptions to the report of the Auditor should be sustained as herein indicated.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.