Iron Works v. Douglass

• Decision Date: 15 October 1887
• Citation: 5 S.W. 585,49 Ark. 355
• Parties: IRON WORKS v. DOUGLAS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

5 S.W. 585

49 Ark. 355

IRON WORKS v. DOUGLAS

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 15, 1887

APPEAL from Garland Circuit Court, LELAND LEATHERMAN, Special Judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

G. G Latta for appellant.

R. G Davies for appellee.

OPINION

COCKRILL, C. J.

The motion for a new trial in this case is based solely upon the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. The appellant has filed an abstract purporting to give the material parts of all the evidence; the appellees have entered their appearance and submitted the cause without questioning its correctness or accuracy. We take the abstract, therefore, as a correct exposition of the case. Rule 9.

The action was by the appellant upon an open account to recover for the value of materials furnished by it to the appellees. The latter were constructing a store house and advertised for bids for an iron front for the building. The bidders were furnished a drawing of the building and specifications of the iron work desired. The appellant put in a bid for the work, specifying particularly the cast and wrought iron work to be furnished by it, with the size and length of items. Other bids were received also, varying, it appears, in some particulars, from the appellant's in the material to be furnished. The contract was awarded to the appellant upon its bid. As the work progressed, the architect in charge of the building wrote to the appellant ordering iron materials to complete the front which were not specified in the bid. The appellant called attention to the fact that the items ordered were not in its contract, but expressed a willingness to forward them at an additional cost of $ 106. The architect deemed the new material necessary to a correct completion of the front, and the appellant filled the order with the appellee's consent. Believing however, that the appellant had contracted to furnish the material to complete the iron front according to the plans and specifications furnished when the bid was made, and that these called for a complete iron front, the appellees afterwards declined to pay for the materials last ordered. This suit was instituted to recover the value of these materials. There was a conflict in the testimony as to whether the plans and specifications upon which the bids were based, called for a complete iron front and included the articles for which the suit was brought. Some of the experts who...