Griffis v. State, 8401

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtROBERTS, J.
Citation2 N.W.2d 666,68 S.D. 360
Decision Date04 March 1942
Docket Number8401
PartiesWILLIAM C. GRIFFIS, Sr., and WILLIAM C. GRIFFIS, Jr., dba William C. Griffis & Son, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Defendant
68 SD 360, 2 NW2d 666 (1942)

WILLIAM C. GRIFFIS, Sr., and WILLIAM C. GRIFFIS, Jr.,
dba William C. Griffis & Son,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
Defendant


South Dakota Supreme Court
Original Proceeding
#8401

Wilson & Blethen, Mankato, Minn.,
Lewis W. Bicknell, Webster, SD
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Leo A. Temmey, Atty. Gen.,
Ray F. Drewry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, SD
Attorneys for Defendant.

Opinion filed March 4, 1942

[68 SD 361]

ROBERTS, J.


Plaintiffs upon the refusal of the State Auditor to allow a claim presented by them instituted this action against the state, pursuant to the provisions of SDC 33.0604. The claim referred to included the following items:

[68 SD 362]

“(1) Increased labor costs by reason of breach of contract of state highway commission of South Dakota in forcing riprapping job to go on during winter months, $7885.22

” (2) Increased trucking expense through breach of contract on part of state highway commission of South Dakota in forcing riprapping job to go on during winter months, 4551.24

” (3) Increased labor expense caused by state highway commission of South Dakota forcing stone to be used on this riprapping project of much larger size than specified in the contract and specifications, 3300.00

“(4) Increased labor costs occasioned by state highway commission of South Dakota forcing riprap to be laid on frozen ground in the wintertime which became out of place in the spring thaws and had to be relaid, 3100.00

” (5) Penalties wrongfully charged for over time, 810.00

” (6) Riprap work done but not paid for, 303.60

” (7) Profit which would have been earned on the job had the state highway commission of South Dakota not forced the job to go on through the winter, and had not demanded stone of larger size than specified, and had not wrongfully charged overtime, 2729.80”

The complaint alleges that on August 29, 1937, plaintiffs entered into a contract with the State of South Dakota to lay riprap along a highway in Day County, this state; that plaintiffs were to complete performance of the contract within ninety days after receiving instructions from the state to begin work; that plaintiffs were readyto commence work on the project on September 1, 1937, but through the negligence and willful disregard of their rights it was not

[68 SD 363]

possible to begin work until October 4; that it was through the mistake of the state that plaintiffs and a grading contractor were on the same section of the road at the same time, preventing plaintiffs from efficiently doing their work; that from November 13, 1937, when a severe blizzard occurred, until spring the weather was abnormally severe, making it impossible for plaintiffs to do their work as efficiently and economically as they would have been able to do if they had been permitted to proceed with the work when they were ready to begin on September 1; that the custom and usage in highway construction work is that work may be suspended during the winter unless otherwise provided in the eontract, and recognizing such custom and usage a resident engineer assured plaintiffs before entering into the contract that they would not be compelled to work during winter weather; that plaintiffs sought through highway engineers suspension of the work until spring and demanded of the highway commission a contract baed upon additional costs to be incurred in carrying on the work in the winter months; that these efforts on the part of the plaintiffs were ignored by defendant; and that the arbitrary and unreasonable action of the defendant caused plaintiffs monetary damage and loss. The complaint contains separate allegations with respect to the several items to which reference has been made. Plaintiffs have withdrawn claim for profits set forth in item 7.

The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that this court is without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Truman v. Griese, No. 24707.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 11 Febrero 2009
    ...Id. (citing generally Lick v. Dahl, 285 N.W.2d 594 (S.D.1979); Darnall v. State, 79 S.D. 59, 108 N.W.2d 201 (1961); Griffis v. State, 68 S.D. 360, 2 N.W.2d 666 (1942); Mullen v. Dwight, 42 S.D. 171, 173 N.W. 645 (1919)) (emphasis added). [¶ 10.] It is settled that whether sovereign immunity......
  • Darnall v. State, No. 9859
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 3 Marzo 1961
    ...against the state in the absence of statutory or constitutional authority has been long accepted by the courts. Griffis v. State, 68 S.D. 360, 2 N.W.2d 666. It is not an inherent right. Sigwald v. State, 50 S.D. 37, 208 N.W. 162. We have had occasions to deal with it in several other cases.......
  • Public Entity Pool for Liability v. Score, No. 22250
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 2003
    ...the State. See generally Lick v. Dahl, 285 N.W.2d 594 (S.D.1979); Darnall v. State, 79 S.D. 59, 108 N.W.2d 201 (1961); Griffis v. State, 68 S.D. 360, 2 N.W.2d 666 (1942); Mullen v. Dwight, 42 S.D. 171, 173 N.W. 645 (1919). Our Legislature has defined the conditions for the waiver of soverei......
  • Arcon Const. Co., Inc. v. South Dakota Cement Plant, Nos. 14139
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 2 Mayo 1984
    ...to render judgment. See G.H. Lindekugel & Sons, Inc. v. South Dakota St. Hy. C., 87 S.D. 32, 202 N.W.2d 125 (1972); Griffis v. State, 68 S.D. 360, 2 N.W.2d 666 However, article XI of the South Dakota Constitution must be interpreted in light of article XIII, sections 10 and 11, which author......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Truman v. Griese, No. 24707.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 11 Febrero 2009
    ...Id. (citing generally Lick v. Dahl, 285 N.W.2d 594 (S.D.1979); Darnall v. State, 79 S.D. 59, 108 N.W.2d 201 (1961); Griffis v. State, 68 S.D. 360, 2 N.W.2d 666 (1942); Mullen v. Dwight, 42 S.D. 171, 173 N.W. 645 (1919)) (emphasis added). [¶ 10.] It is settled that whether sovereign immunity......
  • Darnall v. State, No. 9859
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 3 Marzo 1961
    ...against the state in the absence of statutory or constitutional authority has been long accepted by the courts. Griffis v. State, 68 S.D. 360, 2 N.W.2d 666. It is not an inherent right. Sigwald v. State, 50 S.D. 37, 208 N.W. 162. We have had occasions to deal with it in several other cases.......
  • Public Entity Pool for Liability v. Score, No. 22250
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 2003
    ...the State. See generally Lick v. Dahl, 285 N.W.2d 594 (S.D.1979); Darnall v. State, 79 S.D. 59, 108 N.W.2d 201 (1961); Griffis v. State, 68 S.D. 360, 2 N.W.2d 666 (1942); Mullen v. Dwight, 42 S.D. 171, 173 N.W. 645 (1919). Our Legislature has defined the conditions for the waiver of soverei......
  • Arcon Const. Co., Inc. v. South Dakota Cement Plant, Nos. 14139
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 2 Mayo 1984
    ...to render judgment. See G.H. Lindekugel & Sons, Inc. v. South Dakota St. Hy. C., 87 S.D. 32, 202 N.W.2d 125 (1972); Griffis v. State, 68 S.D. 360, 2 N.W.2d 666 However, article XI of the South Dakota Constitution must be interpreted in light of article XIII, sections 10 and 11, which author......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT