Fressel v. Mariano Uy Chaco Digest

G.R. No. L-10918

March 4, 1916

Trent

WILLIAM FRESSEL, ET AL. vs. AL.  vs. MARIANO ! "#A"O SONS $ "OM%AN! FA"TS& Defendant entered into a contract with E. Merritt, whereby the said Merritt undertook and agreed with the defendant to build for the defendant a costly edifice in the city of Manila. It was agreed that the defendant at any time, upon certain contingencies, before the completion of said edifice could take possession of said edifice in the course of construction and of all the materials in and about said premises acquired by Merritt for the construction.

•

•

 August, the plaintiffs plaintiffs delivered to Merritt at the said edifice materials of the the value of !,"#!.$!, which price Merritt had agreed to pay on the !st day of %eptember, !&!'

•

•

•

•

$#th of August, !&!', the defendant under and by virtue of its contract with Merritt took possession of the incomplete edifice in course of construction together with all the materials on said premises including the materials delivered by plaintiffs (either Merritt nor the defendant has paid for the materials laintiffs demanded of the defendant the return or permission to enter upon said premises and retake said materials at the time still unused which was refused by defendant. )ressel et al insist that Merritt acted as the agent of the defendant in purchasing the materials in question and that the defendant, by taking over and using such materials, accepted and ratified the purchase, thereby obligating itself to pay for the same.

ISSE& Whether or not Merr'tt acte( a) a*ent o+ Mar'ano  "haco Son) $ "o. RATIO& •

•

•

*he facts alleged do not even intimate that the relation e+isting between Merritt and the defendant was that of principal and agent, but, on the contrary, they demonstrate that Merritt was an independent contractor and that the materials were purchased by him as such contractor without the intervention of the defendant. *he fact that the defendant entered into a contract with one E. Merritt, where by the said Merritt undertook and agreed with the defendant to build for the defendant a costly edifice shows that Merritt was authori-ed to do the work according to his own method and without being subect to the defendant/s control, e+cept as to the result of the work. *he mere fact that Merritt and the defendant h ad stipulated in their building contract that the latter could, upon certain contingencies, take possession of the incomplete build ing and all

materials on the ground, did not change Merritt from an independent contractor to an agent. an independent contractor either as such owner or as the assignee of the contractor