Recovery can be had in quantum meruit where complete performance is prevented by subsequent impossibility.1 If a contract for personal services is discharged by the sickness or death of the party who is to render such services, he or his personal representatives are entitled to recover a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by him.2 If a contract for performing work and labor on a house, the house itself belonging to and being under the control of the owner or some one who represents him, is discharged by the destruction of such house without the fault of the contractor who has done work thereon under his contract, such contractor may recover a reasonable compensation for work done by him before such discharge.3 Thus a contract to do lathing and plastering,4 part of the brick and mason work,5 to do work other than grading, excavating, stone and brick work and plumbing,6 to put a tin roof on,7 to place pews in a church,8 to repair and remodel an existing structure,9 or to remove an existing building,10 are each discharged by a destruction of such building without contractor's fault, before the contract is performed and the contractor may recover on quantum meruit. However, a contract to install a ventilating system has been held not to be discharged by the destruction of the building in which it is being constructed. Accordingly, the contractors cannot recover a reasonable compensation for work done.11 Where A agreed to construct an annex to B's building, and building and annex were both burned, it was held that the contract was discharged, and that the owner could recover only the excess of payments made by him to the contractor over payments made by the contractor under the contract.12 If the impossibility is created by act of the law, recovery may be had for whatever has been parted with under such contract. A had permission from the Secretary of the Treasury to search for a boatful of gold which had been sunk in East River during the War of the Revolution. B advanced to A money to be expended in this search, A promising to pay B ten times as much money as B advanced to him in case the treasures were recovered. The Secretary of the Treasury subsequently canceled A's permission to make such search. A was held bound to refund to B the- amount of money remaining in his hands unexpended.13

17 Keyser v. Rehberg, 16 Mont. 331; 41 Pac. 74.

18 Keyser's Appeal, 124 Pa. St. 80; 2 L. R. A. 159; 16 Atl. 577.

19 Merriman v. Machine Co., 96 Wis. 600; 71 N. W. 1050.

20 Cadman v. Markle, 76 Mich. 448; 5 L. P. A. 707; 43 N. W. 315.

1 Greene v. Linton, 7 Port. (Ala.) 133; 31 Am. Dec. 707; Coe v. Smith, 4 Ind. 79; 58 Am. Dec. 618; Butterfield v. Byron, 153 Mass. 517; 25 Am. St. Rep. 654; 12 L. R. A. 571; 27 N. E. 667; Wolfe v. Howes,

20 N. Y. 197; 75 Am. Dec. 388; Parker v. Macomber, 17 R. I. 674; 16 L. R. A. 858; 24 Atl. 464; Mc-Clellan v. Harris, 7 S. D. 447; 64 N. W. 522; Hollis v. Chapman, 36 Tex. 1. What amounts to discharge by subsequent impossibility is discussed elsewhere. See Ch. LXV.

2 Chandler v. Grieves, 2 H. Bl. 606; Ryan v. Dayton, 25 Conn. 188; 65 Am. Dec. 560: Leopold v. Salkey, 89 111. 412; 31 Am. Rep. 93; Coe v. Smith, 4 Ind. 79; 58 Am. Dec. 618;

Harrington v. Iron Works, 119 Mass. 82; Hargrave v. Conroy, 19 X. J. Eq. 281; Clark v. Gilbert, 26 N. Y. 279; 84 Am. Dec. 189; McClel-lan v. Harris, 7 S. D. 447; 64 N. W. 522; Hubbard v. Belden, 27 Vt. 645; Green v. Gilbert, 21 Wis. 395. 3 Rawson v. Clark, 70 111. 656; Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 111. 18; Butterfield v. Byron, 153 Mass. 517; 25 Am. St. Rep. 654; 12 L. R. A. 571; 27 N. E. 667; Cleary v. Sohier, 120 Mass. 210; Haynes v. Church, 88 Mo. 285; 57 Am. Rep. 413; Wilson v. Knott, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 473; Weis v. Devlin. 67 Tex. 507; 60 Am. Rep. 38; 3 S. W. 726; Clark v. Franklin. 7 Leigh (Va.) 1; Hy-seil v. Sterling, etc., Co.. 46 W. Va. 158; 33 S. E. 95; Cook v. McCabe, 53 Wis. 250; 40 Am. Rep. 765; 10 N. W. 507.

4 Cleary v. Sohier, 120 Mass. 210.

5 Cook v. McCabe, 53 Wis. 250; 40 Am. Rep. 765; 10 N. W. 507.

6 Butterfield v. Byron, 153 Mass. 517; 25 Am. St. Rep. 654; 12 L. R. A. 571; 27 N. E. 667.

7 Hysell v. Sterling, etc., Co., 46 W. Va. 158; 33 S. E. 95.

8 Haynes v. Church, 88 Mo. 285; 57 Am. Rep. 413.

9 Weis v. Devlin. 67 Tex. 507; 60 Am. Rep. 38; 3 S. W. 726.

10 Angus v. Scully, 176 Mass. 357; 79 Am. St. Rep. 318; 49 L. R. A. 562; 57 N. E. 674.

11 Huyett, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Edison Co.. 167 111. 233; 59 Am. St. Rep. 272; 47 N. E. 384.