
    Dana D. Woodman v. John Stearns, Jr.
    
      Debt due in mechanic’s work.
    
    If, by contract between the parties, a debt is to be paid in work from a mechanic’s shop, and the mechanic refuses to do the work requested by the creditor, except at a higher price than it is worth, and higher than the customary charges of other mechanics of the same trade, the creditor may collect his debt by a suit at law.
    Book Account. The suit was brought in the county of Washington. Judgment to account was rendered in the county court, and an auditor was appointed, who reported, in substance, as follows.
    The plaintiff was a wheelwright, and the defendant was a blacksmith, and they agreed to exchange work, and the defendant procured of the plaintiff the work and articles charged in the plaintiff’s account, relying upon the agreement and expecting to pay therefor by work at his shop. The defendant subsequently sold to one Lancaster, and agreed with him to perform the work, that was due to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was notified of this arrangement. The plaintiff afterwards applied to Lancaster to iron some sleighs, and inquired his price, and Lancaster said he should charge him five dollars for each sleigh. The plaintiff objected to paying so much, and claimed, that he could get such work performed for $3,00; and he informed the defendant, that he should not pay that price, — but the defendant insisted, that it was a fair price, or at least did not intimate any willingness to do the work for a less price. The defendant was always ready, after the contract was made, to do work for the plaintiff at Lancaster’s shop, but never offered to do it, except by referring the plaintiff to Lancaster for it and for the prices. The plaintiff procured the sleighs ironed for $2,50 and $3,00, which he applied to Lancaster to iron, and $5,00' was more than the work was worth, although that was the usual charging price of the defendant and of Lancaster, and some other blacksmiths charged the same price; but $4,00 was a reasonable price for doing such work. The plaintiff never demanded any other work of the defendant, but refused to take work and pay the price so claimed, and Lancaster refused to do it for any less price. The auditor reported, that if, upon these facts, the plaintiff was entitled to recover, there was due to him from the defendant $21,20. The county court, — Poland, J., presiding, — accepted the report and rendered judgment thereon for the plaintiff. Exceptions by defendant.
    
      Dillingham for defendant.
    --for plaintiff.
   By the Court!

We understand the auditor in this case to have found, that Lancaster’s charge for the work done by the plaintiff was unreasonable, — that it was $5,00, when it should have been but $4,00. And this we can only suppose is with reference to the dealing between the parties, and in the mode of payment there contemplated ; otherwise it would have no proper application to the case. And the cash price for this same work seems to have been much less, — $2,50 or $3,00. Judgment affirmed.  