Forcum v. Indep. Dist. of Montezuma in Poweshiek Cnty.

• Decision Date: 22 October 1896
• Citation: 99 Iowa 435,68 N.W. 802
• Parties: FORCUM ET AL. v. INDEPENDENT DIST. OF MONTEZUMA IN POWESHIEK COUNTY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

99 Iowa 435

68 N.W. 802

FORCUM ET AL.

v.INDEPENDENT DIST. OF MONTEZUMA IN POWESHIEK COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 22, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Poweshiek county; D. Ryan, Judge.

Plaintiff, a co-partnership, entered into a contract with the defendant district to furnish all of the material for, and to build, a schoolhouse for said district. This suit is brought to recover a balance of $100, claimed to be due on the contract; also the sum of $399.89, alleged to be due the plaintiff firm for extra work done and materials furnished which were not provided for by the contract, and for changes made in the work, all of which it is claimed was done at the request of the defendant, and by its direction. The defendant admits the execution of the contract; that the $100 has not been paid; that certain work was done and material furnished which has not been paid for, to the amount of $252.19. It charges that the house was not built according to the contract, whereby defendant has been damaged in the sum of $355 in excess of the $100 due on the contract, and in excess of the extras admitted. Plaintiff, in a reply, in substance denies all claims for damages, and alleges that the work was done as directed by the architects, who had full power to accept and approve the same; that the same was accepted by said architects; that defendant's board of directors had knowledge of the acts of the architects, and knew that the work which is now objected to was being done, and made no objection thereto. To this pleading, a denial was filed by the defendant. Other pleadings were filed, which it is not necessary to more fully refer to. The cause was tried to a jury, and a verdict returned for the defendant, upon which judgment was entered, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.J. W. Carr and W. R. Lewis, for appellant.

C. R. Clark and Haines & Lyman, for appellee.

KINNE, J.

1. Appellee's counsel contend that inasmuch as the evidence is not set out in the abstract, and as the proposed evidence, the rejection of which is complained of, is not fully set forth, there is no question presented on this appeal which we can determine. Complaint is made of the rulings of the court in the rejection of evidence offered.

The questions asked are not set out, but the abstract shows that the offered evidence “tended to prove” the employment of certain architects; their authority to direct the work of construction, as to the material used and labor done, and to accept or reject the same; that the work done, of which the defendant now complains, was so done under the direction of said architects; that some of the members of the defendant's board knew of the facts, and permitted plaintiff to proceed without objection. The offered evidence was ruled out as immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant. There can be no doubt of the right of appellant to raise the question of the correctness of the rulings made under the statement that the evidence “tended to prove” these facts, without setting out in full the questions asked. The statute provides that “no evidence shall go to the supreme court, except such as shall be necessary to explain any exception taken in the case.” McClain's Code, § 3948. This court has recognized the regularity of the method pursued in this case. Kelleher v. City of Keokuk, 60 Iowa, 473, 15 N. W. 280;Weitz v. Independent Dist., 79 Iowa, 423, 44 N. W. 696. The only question is whether the...