Addis v. City of Pittsburgh
| Decision Date | 12 November 1877 |
| Citation | 85 Pa. 379 |
| Parties | Addis <I>versus</I> City of Pittsburgh. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD and STERRETT, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term, 1876, No. 196.
Friend & Cook, for plaintiff in error.—A corporation is bound, when it is shown that by its own act it rendered extra labor and extra material necessary to conform certain work to the requirements of its original contract. The city engineer estimated the work done, and ascertained the number of cubic yards excavated under this second ordinance, down to the completion of the grading. Has not the city assented to this additional work? Or is not this precisely a case as in Messenger v. City of Buffalo, 24 New York 197: "Where labor was required to be performed by the contractor in the fulfilment of his contract, because of an act of the corporation itself, and which the contractor could not control?"
Thomas S. Bigelow, City Solicitor, for the city.—No authority, either general or special, was shown, whereby the city engineer or road committee could allow extra compensation for the work done, and no such authority existed.
We think that the learned judge below was right in his ruling upon the offers of evidence by the plaintiff, and in his charge to the jury.
Under the Acts of Assembly and the ordinances of the city councils given in evidence, contracts for the grading and paving of streets, are to be let after due advertisement to the lowest and best bidder. It is perfectly true that after the contract had been given to the plaintiff, the city had no right to alter it and impose different terms on the contractor as they did by the ordinance changing the grade of Wilkins avenue. The plaintiff would clearly have had the right to rescind the contract, recover for the work he had done, and it may be damages for the breach. The proper course for the city, undoubtedly was to advertise and relet the work. But the plaintiff preferred to go on with the work under his contract. He relied, it was offered to prove, on the assurance of the city engineer and the street committee that he should be compensated for the extra work. But the city itself, much less any of its subordinate officers, or committee, had no power to make an agreement to pay for such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. City of Fargo
...Wis. 304, 84 N.W. 430; City Improv. Co. v. Broderick, 125 Cal. 139, 57 P. 776; McCloud v. Columbus, 54 Ohio St. 439, 44 N.E. 95; Addis v. Pittsburgh, 85 Pa. 379; Zottman v. Francisco, 20 Cal. 96, 81 Am. Dec. 96; State, McDermott, Prosecutor, v. Jersey City Street & Water Comrs. 56 N.J.L. 27......
-
State for Use of Russell County v. Fourth Nat. Bank of Columbus, Ga.
...N.W. 206; Sadler v. Board of County Commissioners of Eureka County, 15 Nev. 39; Parr v. Village of Greenbush, 72 N.Y. 463; Addis v. City of Pittsburgh, 85 Pa. 379; Burgess v. City of Cameron, 113 W.Va. 127, 166 S.E. 113, 703; City and County of Denver v. Moorman, 95 Colo. 111, 33 P.2d 749; ......
-
Marshall & Bruce Co. v. City of Nashville
...184; McDonald v. City of New York, 23 Am. Rep. 144; City of Lancaster v. Miller, 58 Ohio St. 558, 51 N. E. 52; Addis v. City of Pittsburgh, 85 Pa. 379. It is insisted, however, for the city, that, if the ordinance is invalid (and its invalidity is now virtually conceded), still the complain......
-
Marshall & Bruce Co. v. City of Nashville
... ... 189, ... 37 N.W. 184; McDonald v. City of New York, 23 Am ... Rep. 144; City of Lancaster v. Miller, 58 Ohio St ... 558, 51 N.E. 52; Addis v. City of Pittsburgh, 85 Pa ... It is ... insisted, however, for the city, that, if the ordinance is ... invalid (and its ... ...