
    CLORE v. LEACH.
    Appeal and Error — Oral Contracts — Finding oe Court.
    Findings of court in favor of plaintiff on matters of fact in an action for alleged balance due on an oral building reconstruction contract are supported by reeord which shows that plaintiff ’s estimate of cost of reconstruction was, evidently, a factor in obtaining an increased award in condemnation proceedings and tends to negative terms of contract as claimed by defendant and according to which he seeks recovery of a substantial overpayment.
    Appeal from Wayne; Searl (Kelly S.), J., presiding.
    Submitted October 11, 1933.
    (Docket No. 30, Calendar No. 37,370.)
    Decided December 5, 1933.
    Assumpsit by Frank X. Clore against Harry W. Leach for alleged balance due on a building reconstruction contract. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      George B. Murphy, for plaintiff.
    
      Bear, Beattie & Langs, for defendant.
   Wiest, J.

Defendant owns the home of former Governor Baldwin at the northwest corner of Fort and Cass streets in the city of Detroit. Widening of Cass street by the city required removal of a part of the building and reconstruction by the owner. In the condemnation proceeding defendant was awarded, for the purpose of reconstruction of the building, about $18,000. Plaintiff had estimated the expense at $18,354.75. Plaintiff was employed to reconstruct the building. The contract between the parties was oral, and they differ sharply as to the terms. Plaintiff brought this suit, claiming a balance due him amounting to $1,355.61, based on an alleged oral contract, on the basis of cost plus 10 per cent. Defendant claims there was a limit of $12,000 agreed upon for the whole job, and seeks recovery of overpayment of $2,111.55. The case was heard by the court and judgment awarded plaintiff for the amount he claimed. Defendant prosecutes review wholly upon questions of fact.

The findings of the circuit judge are supported by the record and we cannot hold that the judgment is against the preponderance of the evidence.

The estimate of cost of reconstruction, made by plaintiff during pendency of the condemnation proceeding, was, evidently, a factor in obtaining an increased award. This strongly tends to negative the terms of the contract as claimed by defendant, and in connection with payments made of over $2,000 in excess of what defendant now claims he was to pay, is persuasive that the contract was as claimed by plaintiff.

It would be of no benefit to the profession to make review of the evidence.

We find no reversible error. Judgment is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Dead, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred. Weadock, J., did not sit.  