Johnson Cnty. v. Lowe
| Decision Date | 31 October 1880 |
| Citation | 72 Mo. 637 |
| Parties | JOHNSON COUNTY v. LOWE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court.--HON. NOAH M. GIVAN, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
G. N. Elliott and Land & Sparks for appellants.
W. H. Brinker and W. W. Wood for respondent
The defendant, Lowe, contracted with the county of Johnson to build a bridge across South Blackwater, in said county, according to certain plans and specifications furnished by the county, and, together with his co-defendants herein, executed a bond to said county to secure the performance of said contract. The county instituted the present suit upon said bond for an alleged failure on the part of said Lowe to construct said bridge according to contract. The defendants averred in their answer that said bridge was in all respects constructed in the manner and within the time provided by the contract; that it was inspected by a special bridge commissioner of the county, appointed by the county court for that purpose, who reported that it conformed to the contract, and that the county court of said county thereupon received said bridge and paid for the same. The defendants further averred that the plans and specifications provided for the defendant Lowe, were faulty and imperfect, and whatever defects might be found in said bridge, were the result of the defective plans, in conformity to which it was constructed. These allegations were denied in the reply.
The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to sustain the breaches complained of. It appeared from the testimony offered by the defendants, that the county court appointed J. E. Rankin to examine and receive the bridge from the contractor; that he reported to the court that the defendant Lowe had complied with his contract, and that the court then paid Mr. Lowe the contract price. No evidence was offered of any defect in the plans. At the time the warrant was issued the floor had not been completed, nor had the props been knocked from under the bridge. When Rankin made his report, and before the court ordered a warrant to be issued, a conversation occurred between Mr. Lowe, the contracter, and the judges of the county court, which was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff for the purpose of showing that the court did not, by receiving the bridge and paying therefor, waive any right of action which the county might have on his bond. It appears from this conversation, that the judges were reluctant to issue the warrant, before the bridge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnston v. Star Bucket Pump Company
...until he made the final examination. Actual knowledge is necessary for estoppel or waiver. Tennent v. Ins. Co., 133 Mo.App. 345; Johnson Co. v. Lowe, 72 Mo. 637; Mantel v. Thaler, 133 Mo.App. 86; St. Joseph v. Dillon, 61 Mo.App. 317; Lack v. Brecht, 166 Mo. 242. (g) The contract specificall......
-
Royle Mining Company v. The Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
...Mo.App. 365. (3) So, too, a waiver cannot exist without knowledge. Waiver presupposes knowledge. Haysler v. Owen, 61 Mo. 270; Johnson County v. Lowe, 72 Mo. 637; Nevius v. Moore, 221 Mo. 356; Gallies v. Woodmen, 98 Mo.App. 527; Advance Thresher Co. v. Pierce, 74 Mo.App. 684; Burgess v. Ins.......
-
Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United Workmen of Missouri v. McFadden
...in the failure to comply with the contract; otherwise there is no waiver as against the defendant, Bridget McFadden. Johnson County v. Lowe, 72 Mo. 637; Haysler Owen, 61 Mo. 270; Advance Thresher Co. v. Pierce, 74 Mo.App. 676; Mohney v. Reed, 40 Mo.App. 99. (10) When the member of a benefit......
-
State ex rel. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Trimble
...Appeals is contrary to: Andrus v. Ins. Co., 168 Mo. 151; McCullough v. Ins. Co., 113 Mo. 606; Schwab v. Ins. Co., 264 S.W. 690; Johnson County v. Lowe, 72 Mo. 637. (3) The Court Appeals erred and refused to follow the controlling decisions of the Supreme Court in holding, as it did, that th......