City of Lake View v. Macritchie
| Decision Date | 31 October 1890 |
| Parties | CITY OF LAKE VIEW v. MacRITCHIE et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, first district.
Action of debt by the city of Lake View against Charles MacRitchie, John Nichol, and James A. Mason upon a contractor's bond. Two of the defendants, MacRitchie and Nichol, entered into a contract to furnish and lay on the bottom of Lake Michigan an inlet pipe connected with the Lake View Water Works, and to do certain other work in connection therewith. The conditions of the bond alleged to have been broken are that the contractors shall ‘well and truly keep and perform the said contract, in accordance with the terms thereof, and the plans and specifications therein referred to, in the times and manner described; and, further, shall indemnify, keep, and save harmless the town of Lake View from all liabilities, damages, and expenses in consequence of granting said contract, or which may in any wise result from the carelessness or neglect of said MacRitchie and Nichol, agents, employes, or workmen, in any respect whatever.’ These specifications, among other provisions, contain this clause: ‘All of the work to be guarantied to remain in good condition for one year from date of acceptance.’ The court instructed the jury that this provision was in fact a guaranty, not only that the work should be done in the most workmanlike manner, and with proper materials, but that the contractors would further see that it would remain in good condition for one year from the date of acceptance, and refused to instruct, that if the evidence showed that the break in the pipe was not owing to any defective workmanship or material in the execution of the contract by appellants, by was owing to defects in the plans devised by the town's engineer, and adopted by the authorities of the town, for the construction and laying of said pipe, the plaintiff could not recover. Plaintiff obtained judgment, but this judgment was reversed by the appellate court, and plaintiff appeals.Jonas Hutchinson, (Hervey H. Anderson
, of counsel,) for appellant.
Freeman & Walker, for appellees.
The instrument which was executed by MacRitchie and Nichol and the town of Lake View specifically referred to the specifications and plan thereto attached as more fully describing that which was to be done by the contractors, and expressly made the same part of the contract; and so, the provision in the specifications, ‘all of the work to be guarantied to remain in good condition for one year from date of acceptance,’ was as effectually made a part of the contract as it would have been had the very wording of such provision been incorporated in the writing which was signed. The guaranty that the work should remain in good condition for the designated period of time was not, by the terms of the contract, limited to the work to be done, and the materials to be furnished by the contractors. It was elsewhere in the agreement expressly stipulated that their work should be executed in the best and most workmanlike manner, and not only that no improper materials should be used, but that all materials furnished, of every kind, should fully respond to the requirements of the specifications, and that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Board of Commissioners Sewer Improvement District No. 1 of Blytheville
...contract including all the plans and specifications. 62 Ark. 330; 6 Cyc. 9; 4 Elliott on Cont., 1007, par. 3798, and p. 800, par. 3620; 25 N.E. 663. Corporations as sureties are not favored. 73 F. 95; 79 Ark. 530. The cause should be affirmed on appeal and on the cross-appeal appellee shoul......
-
Sandy Hites Co. v. State Highway Com'n
...the defendant's failure to pay such estimates were conditions precedent to the right of recovery. Snell v. Brown, 71 Ill. 143; Lakeview v. McRitchie, 134 Ill. 203; Gilmore v. Courtney, 158 Ill. 432; Chicago v. McKechney, 205 Ill. 459; Williams v. Chicago S. F. & C. Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 463; Mye......
-
Intaglio Service Corp. v. J. L. Williams & Co., Inc.
...contract (Chicago Trust and Savings Bank v. Chicago Title and Trust Co. (1901), 190 Ill. 404, 60 N.E. 586; City of Lake View v. MacRitchie (1890), 134 Ill. 203, 25 N.E. 663; Jacksonville Hotel Building Corp. v. Dunlap Hotel Co. (1931), 264 Ill.App. 279, modified and affirmed on other ground......
-
White Construction Co. v. Arkansas-Louisiana Highway Improvement District
...where they have been construed to mean an absolute undertaking to keep in repair, are found as follows: 89 Ark. 95; 224 F. 842; 171 F. 29; 134 Ill. 203; S.W. 1125; 38 S.W. 458; 101 N. E. (N. Y.) 162; 60 N.J.L. 394; 46 N.Y. 444; 29 App. D. C. 506. The case so strongly relied upon by appellan......