City of Ft. Madison v. Moore

• Decision Date: 21 October 1899
• Citation: 80 N.W. 527,109 Iowa 476
• Parties: CITY OF FORT MADISON, v. T. H. MOORE and M. L. LANE, Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

80 N.W. 527

109 Iowa 476

CITY OF FORT MADISON, v. T. H. MOORE and M. L. LANE, Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 21, 1899

Appeal from Lee District Court.--HON. HENRY BANK, JR., Judge.

THIS is an action upon a bond given to secure the faithful performance of a contract with the city for work for which the defendants Moore and Lane were contractors. The other defendants were sureties. It is claimed there was a breach of the conditions of the obligation, and damages are sought in this proceeding therefor. Plaintiff's claims were put in issue, and a counterclaim was pleaded by the principal defendants. From a verdict and judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendants Moore and Lane appeal.

Affirmed.

T. B Snyder and J. J. Watson for appellants.

T. H Johnson and Hamilton & Hamilton for appellee.

OPINION

WATERMAN, J.

The evidence is in substantial conflict, and we shall not disturb the finding of the jury because of any matter of fact.

I. The work to be done was fully described in specifications which were referred to in the advertisement for bids. Defendants' bid, which was in writing, was duly accepted and the acceptance entered of record. No other contract was made, although the notice for bids provides for such an instrument. Appellants seem to claim something on this account, but we do not see how they can derive any advantage therefrom. There was a contract by the acceptance of defendants' bid, and the bond in suit was given to secure its performance.

It is further urged that this bond was given to secure, by its terms, the performance of the contract, when, by statute, it should have been to secure the doing of the "work." We cannot agree with appellants that the liability of defendants, would be altered if the condition was as they claim it should be. Furthermore, we find that in section 4, chapter 7, Laws Twenty-fifth General Assembly, it is provided that bonds of this kind shall be conditioned for the faithful performance of the "contract." The breach of the bond is sufficiently charged in the petition, but, if this were not so, it is too late now to make such objection.

II. The petition recites the passage of certain resolutions by the council, under the authority of which the city officers assumed to act in doing this work. These resolutions were admitted in evidence over defendants' objection. The answer put in issue the adoption of such resolutions. As they were the basis of the city's right to proceed, they were properly admitted.

A like complaint is made of the admission of other resolutions adopted, which declared the contract forfeited, and ordered that suit be brought to recover damages, and also the resolution letting the contract to defendants. The latter was clearly competent, and as to the others we can see no possible harm to the defendants in the court's action in receiving them in evidence. If it was erroneous,--which we do not hold,--it was in no way prejudicial.

There is a further assignment of error based upon the admission of evidence going to show that the specifications were altered before the contract was signed. This is without merit. Among the one hundred and four assignments of error there are some others which relate to the reception and exclusion of testimony. We do not feel called upon to do more than say that none of the rulings are of such a character as to justify a reversal of the case.

III. We come now to the objections to the instructions. It is first charged that the issues were not properly given to the jury. In stating the case, the trial court gave the substance...