Wilhelm v. Hadley, 218 Md. 152

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed a jury verdict awarding a plumbing contractor payment for materials and installation work performed on the defendants' house. The court held that the plaintiff's testimony was legally sufficient to support a finding of a direct contract with the homeowners and rejected the Statute of Frauds defense. The court also found no reversible error in the challenged evidentiary rulings and held that an unpreserved objection to an improper question was not reviewable, affirming the judgment.

Holdings

1. Hadley's testimony, if believed by the jury, was legally sufficient to support a finding that he had a direct contract with the Wilhelms, despite documentary evidence identifying Durham as the contractor.
2. The jury's finding of a direct promise by the Wilhelms disposed of their Statute of Frauds defense because the promise was not established as merely collateral to Durham's debt.
3. Even assuming that admitting evidence concerning the extent and cost of Gibson's work or the nonpayment of his bill was erroneous, the defendants failed to show prejudice warranting reversal.
4. Admission of testimony concerning the Wilhelms' conveyance of the property did not require reversal because any error was harmless and did not constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion.
5. The defendants' objection to the allegedly improper question about the property's resale was not properly before the appellate court because they did not preserve the issue in the trial court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Hadley had a direct contract with the Wilhelms.
2. Whether the alleged promise by the Wilhelms was a collateral undertaking to answer for Durham's debt and therefore unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence concerning unfinished work performed by another worker, the worker's unpaid bill, and the Wilhelms' conveyance of the property.
4. Whether the questioning concerning a later resale of the property constituted preserved and reversible misconduct of counsel.

Disposition

affirmed