Hinkle v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 24 November 1885 |
| Docket Number | 12,159 |
| Citation | 3 N.E. 624,104 Ind. 84 |
| Parties | Hinkle v. Fisher |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Randolph Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with cost.
T Shockney, for appellant.
S. M Whitten, for appellee.
Action by Jacob Fisher against Squire J. Hinkle for damages alleged to have resulted from the non-performance of a parol contract. A demurrer having been first overruled, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $ 65, and judgment followed upon the verdict.
The only question presented upon this appeal is, did the circuit court err in overruling the demurrer to the complaint?
The complaint charged that in March, 1882, the board of commissioners of the county of Randolph, in this State, upon the petition of the defendant Hinkle and others, made and entered of record an order for the construction of a free gravel and turnpike road, in said county, upon a certain route, particularly specified in such order; that the defendant was the owner of a farm, containing about seventy acres of land, upon the proposed line of such gravel and turnpike road, which would be greatly improved by the construction of such road; that consequently said road when completed would constitute a work of great pecuniary value to the defendant, all of which was well known to the defendant; that thereafter, by proper advertisements, bids were invited for the construction of such gravel and turnpike road; that thereupon the defendant in the form of a bid, proposed to construct section twelve (12) of such road for the sum of $ 696.36; that inasmuch as there had been no bids for some parts of the proposed line of road, it was agreed between all interested that the entire line should be readvertised for bids, with the understanding that in certain contingencies the bids made and filed under the first advertisement should be accepted and held to be mutually binding; that the defendant, being extremely anxious to have the road constructed, solicited the plaintiff to make a bid for the work to be done on said section twelve (12) under the new or second advertisement, and as an inducement to him, the plaintiff, to propose to do such work at the same price which he, the defendant, by his previous bid had offered to perform, promised to pay the plaintiff the additional sum of $ 3.64, so as to make the contract price equal to $ 700, and to furnish, free of charge, all the timber which might be needed in the construction of culverts on said section twelve (12), and also promised to likewise furnish, free of charge, all the gravel necessary for the building and completion of said section twelve (12) of the road in question; that fully relying upon the inducements thus held out, and the promises so made to him by the defendant, the plaintiff, on the 10th day of June, 1882, made and filed his bid under said new or second advertisement, proposing to do the required work on said section twelve (12) for the said sum of $ 696.36, and also filed a good and sufficient bond to secure the proper execution of his contract in the event of the acceptance of his bid; that his bid was thereafter, and in due time, accepted; that the plaintiff then entered upon the work which by his contract he had agreed to perform; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial