Grant v. The Savannah
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Grant, Alexander & Company, plaintiffs in error. v. the Savannah, Griffin and North Alabama Railroad Company, defendant in error. |
[Trippe, J., having been of counsel, did not preside in this case.]
Railroads. Arbitrament and award. Waiver. Estoppel. Contracts. Before Judge Hall. Spalding Superior Court. May Adjourned Term, 1873.
For the facts of this case, see the decision.
Nisbet & Jackson; Whittle & Gustin; Doyal & Nun-nally, for plaintiffs in error.
B. H. Hill & Son; Peeples & Howell; A. W. Hammond & Son; Boynton & dismuke;SpeER & Stewart, for defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant to recover a sum of money alleged to be due them as railroad contractors, on the following contract:
To the plaintiffs' action, the defendant plead that the contract was not performed by the plaintiffs by the time specified therein, and claimed damages in consequence thereof, which damages the defendant sought to recoup against the plaintiffs, demand in the nature of a cross-action therefor. On the trial of the case, the jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict for the plaintiffs for $10,000 00 in the stock of the defendant's company, (about which there was no controversy,) but allowed the defendant to recoup in damages against the plaintiffs the entire amount of their claim over and above the amount of stock claimed by them. A motion was made by the plaintiffs for a new trial on the several grounds therein set forth, which was overruled by the court, and the plaintiffs excepted.
1. The plaintiffs introduced in evidence the following document, the same being the final estimate of the work done by plaintiffs under the contract by its chief engineer on the road:
Final Estimate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|''Deduct former payments |$ 79, 758 00 |
|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
|" for unfinished embankments |100 00 |
|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
|" for unfinished rock-cut, (sec. 34,) |25 00 |
|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
|" for surface culverts not built, 72 cubic perches, $3 00|216 00—80, 099 00|
|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
|''Balance due |$19,901 00 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*"I certify that the above estimate is correct, and that the work is finished according to contract with the exception of the above deductions.
(Signed) "H. S. WATT, Engineer."
The engineer was examined as a witness, and stated that the final estimate was not dated, by an oversight of his, but it was made out on the 28th of October, 1870. It appears from the evidence in the record that the road was not completed to Newnan until about the 20th of October. The main controlling ques-tion in this case is, what is the proper legal interpretation of the contract made by the parties? When a contract is written in plain unambiguous words, the construction of it is a question for the court, and not a question for the jury. What is the fair legal construction and interpretation of the contract made by the parties for the building of defendant\'s road from Griffin to Newnan? The plaintiffs contracted on their part to build the road in accordance with specifications and instructions of the chief engineer of the company or his representative, by or before the first of June, 1870. The defendant contracted to pay the plaintiffs therefor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crisp County v. SJ Groves & Sons Co.
...any offset arising from this cause, it ought to have entered into the final estimate and into the compromise. Compare Grant et al. v. Savannah, etc., R. Co., 51 Ga. 349. By the weight of the evidence, that portion of the plans which stipulated for damages for delay was waived. A blank appea......