Cnty. of St. Louis v. Cleland

• Decision Date: 30 June 1835
• Citation: 4 Mo. 84
• Parties: COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS v. BERIAH CLELAND.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

4 Mo. 84

COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS

v.BERIAH CLELAND.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June Term, 1835.

ERROR TO THE ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

TOMPKINS, J.

Cleland brought his action of covenant in the Circuit Court against the County of St. Louis, and had a judgment in his favor. To reverse this judgment the county prosecutes this writ of error. The declaration charges that the county by Archibald Gamble, her duly authorized agent, made her certain deed sealed with the seal of the said defendant and also with the seal of said plaintiff, and that it was thereby agreed that the plaintiff should build a certain bridge, and that it was among other things agreed that the plaintiff should build wing walls for said bridge, and that the defendant might increase the length of said wing walls at any time before the completion of the said work on condition of paying for such additional work a certain price in such agreement specified, and that the said defendant did direct the plaintiff to build the said wing walls longer than it had been at first determined to build them, &c. The plaintiff demands damages of the county for the non-performance of her contract to pay for the extra work. The defendant pleaded 1st, that the writing declared on was not her deed, 2nd, that the said Gamble was not her agent, 3rd, that she did not direct the length of said walls to be increased, 4th, that the said addition to the said walls was not built agreeably to contract, 5th, this plea was of the same import as the fourth. Issues were joined on all these pleas and found for plaintiff, defendant in error. An order of the County Court of St. Louis county was given in evidence appointing Archibald Gamble commissioner on the part of the county to act jointly with such person as the corporation of the city of St. Louis may appoint for that purpose to contract for the building of the bridge mentioned upon such plan as they shall think best. It was also proved that the commissioner thus appointed by the county did jointly with one appointed on the part of the city, contract with the defendant in error to build the bridge, and that the commissioner of the city directed the defendant in error to build the wing walls of the bridge longer than he had at first contracted to build them, and that the additional work was accordingly done. It was also testified by the commissioner of the county that he never requested the defendant in error to build the addition to the wings--that he did jointly with the...