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

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.

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