p. 98The defense set np was non-performance of the contract by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs erected the engine pursuant to the contract, provided the contract did not require them either to construct a more stable foundation, or notify the defendant to do so. After the engine had been in operation a day or two, it ceased to work satisfactorily, owing to the fact that its foundation was not solid.
The plaintiffs placed it upon the ground floor of the defendant’s building. This floor is made of plank, an inch and one-quarter thick, laid upon and nailed to stringers, two inches by four, two feet apart, imbedded flatwise in the sand. There was a brick floor in another part of the same room, and the plaintiffs proposed to place the engine there, but the defendant directed it to be placed where the plaintiffs put it. The engine is of metal, mostly iron, and weighs 2,200 pounds. It has a large iron base, five feet, six inches long, by twenty-two inches wide, the base standing on the floor. It is propelled by a series of gas explosions, which cause a jar at each explosion. The event shows that there ought to be a more stable foundation for the engine. The plaintiffs never saw the building until they brought the engine there. The plaintiffs did not examine the floor, but were told by one of the defendant’s servants how it was constructed.
Edgar T. Brackett, for the appellant.
Charles S. Lester, for the respondents.
"We agree with the learned trial court that the defendant was required 'by the contract to furnish the foundation upon which to place the engine. It did this. The plaintiffs, when they made the contract, had no notice that the foundation would require any care from them in respect to its solidity, and the contract imposed no obligation upon them in that respect. It is reasonable to suppose that, if such a requirement was to be made of them, the contract would have mentioned it. The contract does specify that the engine should be erected in defendant’s building; that is, in the place therein to be designated by the defendant, which place the defendant did designate.
p. 99The floor proved to be unstable; it was not obviously so at the time the engine was erected, and there is no suggestion of bad faith on the part of the plaintiffs in erecting the engine in a place they knew to be unfit. The difficulty is one which might have been avoided by a proper provision in the contract, but the plaintiffs, at the time of making it, had no knowledge about the floor, and the defendant no apprehension of its instability. The defendant having agreed to find the place, and having found it, it is its fault or misfortune that it proves unsuitable.
The objections to the admission of evidence we do not think well taken.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Paekeb, P. J., TIebbick and Mebwin, JJ., concurred; Putnam, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.