Biegert v. Village of Maynard
| Decision Date | 13 June 1913 |
| Docket Number | 18,114 - (110) |
| Citation | 142 N.W. 20,122 Minn. 126 |
| Parties | H. L. BIEGERT v. VILLAGE OF MAYNARD |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Chippewa county to recover $396 for work, labor and material furnished in building two bridge piers. The answer alleged payment to plaintiff of the agreed contract price for the construction of the piers and in full for extra work and material furnished, and denied the allegations of the complaint. The case was tried before Qvale, J., who denied defendant's motion to direct a verdict in defendant's favor and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed.
Verdict sustained by evidence.
1. Evidence considered and held to sustain a verdict for defendant.
Rulings of court.
2. There was no prejudicial error in the rulings on the admission of evidence or in the charge.
A. E Kief, for appellant.
Fosnes & Fosnes, for respondent.
Plaintiff was the successful bidder for the construction of six bridges to cross a county ditch on roads in the vicinity of defendant village. The ditch had been established and surveyed, but not actually dredged out. His written proposal to construct these bridges for a price of $2,900 was accepted in writing by the village council and the county commissioners. This contract provided for the building of the bridges according to specifications attached. The specifications as to the two bridges involved in this action were as follows:
The contract sheds no light on the meaning of these specifications, and contains no additional information as to the width of the bridges, the angle at which they should cross the ditch in case the roads crossed it diagonally, or as to whether the piers for the bridges should be constructed before or after the dredge had gone through the ditch.
At the time the contract was entered into or shortly thereafter, the line of the ditch, as it was planned to cross the highway near the village, was staked out, but the dredge was not expected there for some time, as it was still a mile away from the village. Plaintiff claimed that it was agreed, at or before the time of the execution of the written contract, that he might build the piers before the dredge went through. He did so, with the consent of the members of the village council and the engineer who had charge. In constructing these piers, which were of concrete, and were to form the supports on either side on which the stringers were to rest, plaintiff did not erect them at right angles with the highways, when the highways crossed the line of the ditch diagonally, but followed the line of the ditch. It was seen by the engineer that, under this method of placing the piers, if the 24-foot stringers were used, there would not be sufficient distance between the piers to enable the dredge to pass through. Plaintiff substituted 30-foot stringers. After the piers for these two bridges were constructed, the dredge came along and was unable to pass between the piers, the distance between the two piers for each bridge being less than the width of the dredge. It therefore became necessary to blow out one pier at each bridge to enable the dredge to perform its work.
After this plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract in which, after reciting that a dispute had arisen as to which party should pay the cost of rebuilding the piers so destroyed, it was agreed that plaintiff should immediately rebuild the piers and complete the two bridges, that defendant should pay plaintiff all money due him under the original contract, and that the question of who should pay the cost of rebuilding the piers should be left open.
Plaintiff thereupon rebuilt the two piers, completed the bridges, and brought this action to recover the value of the labor and material furnished in the reconstruction of the piers. The issues in the case were submitted to a jury and a verdict for defendant returne...
To continue reading
Request your trial