This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D are subcontractors. They entered into an agreement for installing sewer lines. The contract stated that P will receive $ 20,000 for supervision, which will be added to the actual cost figure. The difference between actual cost and bid price was divided 1/3rd to P and 2/3rds to D. P was to supervise the project. P was paid $517,451.11, and P brought suit for an alleged payment deficit of $55,243.20 on the contract. P presented evidence of a verbal agreement to pay salary and living expenses in addition to the $20,000. P got the judgment for $40,349.11. D appealed on an award for $18,600 (in addition to $20,000 for supervision) for the salary and living expenses of P's president and sole stockholder during the time he was personally engaged in the supervision of the construction. P contends this is a double recovery and contrary to contract terms.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.