
    JOUBLANC vs. DAUNOY.
    APPEAL PROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    Where a person contracts with a workman to build several houses for a certain price payable at fixed periods, and discharges him before the completion of the edifices, and it is in proof the work was well executed, the latter will recover the full amount of his] work and labor done as on a quantum meruit.
    
    The plaintiff sues to recover three thousand seven hundred dollars from the defendant which he alleges is the balance due him of the price of building three houses for her, in pursuance of an agreement between them. The plaintiff alleges that he contracted with Miss Daunoy to build her three houses in the city of New-Orleans, for the sum of nine thousand and seventy-five dollars; that he went on to perform faithfully his work until near the close, when he was ill-treated and discharged by the defendant; that the work which he actually done on said houses amounts to nine thousand dollars, of which sum five thousand three hundred dollars has been paid to him, leaving a balance of three thousand seven hundred dollars unpaid, which the defendant refuses to pay and for which he prays judgment.
    The defendant pleads a general denial; admits she employed the plaintiff to build her houses according to certain written contracts annexed; one made on the 8th of April 1833, for the building of two houses, &c. for two thousand five hundred dollars each; and the other the 29th of August for the construction of a house and out-buildings for three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars. She charges that the plaintiff done said work so negligently, unskillfully and in such an unworkmanlike manner, that she was compelled to employ other workmen to complete the work, and that she has sustained an actual damage in the delay and expense of paying other workmen to finish the houses, &c. to the amount, over and above what the plaintiff done and received, three thousand and fifty dollars, for which she prays judgment in reconvention.
    The district judge was of opinion from the evidence, that the plaintiff was prevented by the defendant from completing the work. She repeatedly harrassed the plaintiff with threats and finally told him in the presence of his workmen to quit the work, and speaking to the workmen, she told them to quit working on her buildings, that she would not pay them. The workmen all ceased to work in consequence thereof.
    The plaintiff is á man of color, and the defendant’s nephew acted as her agent, between whom and the workmen there appears to have been no difficulty, but the defendant interfered and countermanded his orders. It was in proof that she invited the plaintiff to return and complete the contract but he refused. In relation to the workmanship and materials it was proved to be well done and of good materials.
    There were two sets of experts called on to estimate the value of the work done, from whose different estimates the district judge was of opinion there was a balance due the plaintiff of two thousand five hundred dollars, and gave judgment accordingly.
    The defendant appealed.
    The plaintiff in his answer joined in the appeal and claimed the amount as prayed for in his original petition.
    Canon, for the plaintiff and appellee.
    The proprietor may cancel at pleasure the contract with an undertaker to build; but in doing so the contract is dissolved in all its parts, and the latter can recover the full amount of his work and labor done by other evidence than that of the written contract. La. Code 2736. 2 La. Rep. 331.
    Roselius, for the defendant.
    1. The District Court erred in its judgment, because the contracts were not cancelled by the defendant, but were violated by the plaintiff.
    2. Even if the plaintiff was dismissed by the defendant the amount allowed him is exorbitant and not supported by the evidence. The contract, though not conclusive evidence, yet it affords strong proof of the real value of the work. 2 La. Rep. 331. 5 ib. 260.
    3. At all events the plaintiff is not entitled to receive more than was allowed in the estimate of one of the experts amounting to one thousand four hundred dollars.
   Mathews, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit to recover from the defendant the value of certain labor done and materials furnished in building several houses, which the plaintiff undertook to construct and finish for prices fixed by contracts which are alleged to have been violated by the defendant in forbiding the undertaker to proceed to complete the works agreed on, after he progressed in the undertaking nearly to its completion, &c. The court below gave judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

where a person contracts houses for a cerní n price payviádsf1 amfd diTbef¿?eSthe m™ edifices, and it is in proof the work "ys ,wo|i exocut™d quantum meruit.

The decision of the cause depends mainly on matters of fact. The evidence is somewhat contradictory, as generally happens in cases of this kind.

The court below concluded from the whole testimony, giving to each part such right as was considered reasonable, that the contract had been violated by the conduct of the defendant, and was no longer binding on the parlies, and } ° ° that the plaintiff was consequently entitled to recover as on quantum meruit the value of the work by him actually done and the costs of materials furnished. By a calculation in pursuance of these premises the sum due by the appellant was ascertained and judgment accordingly rendered, *■* JO oj We have examined the testimony and the law of the case, and are unable to discover any error either in the principles assumed or the conclusions of the court below.

It is therefore ordered, &c. that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed with costs.  