Forcum v. Independent Dist. of Montezuma, of Poweshiek County

• Decision Date: 22 October 1896
• Citation: 68 N.W. 802,99 Iowa 435
• Parties: J. B. FORCUM & SONS, Appellants, v. THE INDEPENDENT DISTRICT OF MONTEZUMA, OF POWESHIEK COUNTY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

68 N.W. 802

99 Iowa 435

J. B. FORCUM & SONS, Appellants, v. THE INDEPENDENT DISTRICT OF MONTEZUMA, OF POWESHIEK COUNTY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 22, 1896

Appeal from Poweshiek District Court.--HON. 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 one hundred dollars, claimed to be due on the contract; also the sum of three hundred and ninety-nine dollars and eighty-nine cents, 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 one hundred dollars has not been paid; that certain work was done and material furnished which has not been paid for, to the amount of two hundred and fifty-two dollars and nineteen cents. It charges that the house was not built according to contract, whereby defendant has been damaged in the sum of three hundred and fifty-five dollars in excess of the one hundred dollars 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.

AFFIRMED.

J. W Carr and W. R. Lewis for appellants.

C. R Clark and Haines & Lyman for appellee.

OPINION

KINNE, J.

I.

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 cause." McClain's Code section 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 District, 79 Iowa 423 (44 N.W. 696). The only question is whether the offered evidence tended to prove such a state of facts, as...