Jones v. Paul

• Decision Date: 19 April 1909
• Parties: J. J. JONES, Respondent, v. JULIA S. PAUL, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

118 S.W. 522

136 Mo.App. 524

J. J. JONES, Respondent, v. JULIA S. PAUL, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

April 19, 1909

November 16, 1908;

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court,--Hon. Howard Gray, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner & Cameron for appellant.

(1) The general ordinance, together with the contract made time of the essence of the contract, the same as though it was written in the contract. This is settled law in this State. Springfield v. Divi., 80 Mo.App. 574; Herman v. Gillian, 171 Mo. 267 l. c; Paving Co v. Munn, 185 Mo. 569 l. c.; Springfield v Schmook, 12 Mo.App. 489. (2) When time is of the essence of the contract, the city council has no authority to extend the time for completing the contract. And if the work is not completed within the time mentioned in the contract, the taxbills issued in payment of the work are void. The provision that the work must be completed within the time is mandatory. Smith v. Westport, 105 Mo.App. 221; Spalding v. Forsa, 109 Mo.App. 675; Rose v Trestrail, 62 Mo.App. 358. The charter of cities of the third class provides that contracts for improving streets shall be let by competition bidding. R. S. 1899, sec. 5860.

Grayston & Graham for respondent.

(1) The extension of time, granted by the council, on March 26, 1901, having been made before the first period of seventy-five days had elapsed was a valid extension and the work having been completed within the time, as extended, the taxbill was valid. Hund v. Rackliffe, 192 Mo. 324.

OPINION

JOHNSON, J.

Action to enforce the lien of a special tax bill issued by the city of Joplin, a city of the third class, in part payment of the cost of grading and macadamizing First street in said city from Amander avenue to Meridian street. The validity of the tax bill is attacked by defendant on the ground that the time for the completion of the improvement was made of the essence of the contract between the city and the contractor, and the improvement was not completed until after the expiration of the time specified.

The ordinance authorizing the work was passed by the city council December 19, 1900, and is as follows:

"Section 1. That First street be improved by bringing to subgrade and macadamizing the same from Meridian street to Amander avenue, as provided by general ordinance No. 38, entitled 'An Ordinance defining the manner in which the paving, macadamizing, curbing and guttering of streets, avenues, squares, alleys, or other highways or part thereof, shall be done, and the manner in which improvements shall be paid for.' Approved June 13, 1893.

"Section 2. The city engineer is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for bids in the Joplin Daily Globe for the bringing to sub-grade and macadamizing First street from Meridian street to Amander avenue, according to the plans and specifications now on file in the office of the city clerk, and said work to be done under the supervision of the street committee and city engineer, as provided by general ordinance No. 33, and paid for in special tax bills, there being no money in the city treasury to pay for the same. Also that the bids will be opened by him, in the presence of the council, on the eighth day of January, 1901.

"Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its approval and publication."

The general ordinance to which reference is made provided:

"The acceptance of a bid shall be taken as an award of the contract for the proposed work to the party making the same and the street committee shall, without delay, enter into contract with such bidder, for the completion of such work according to the specifications for the same and within the time agreed upon." Pursuant to these ordinances, bids were advertised for and the contract was awarded to W. H. Mahoney as the lowest and best bidder. A written contract between the city and Mahoney went into effect on the 14th day of January, 1900. It required the contractor to complete the improvement "within seventy-five days from the time this contract goes into effect," but provided no penalty or forfeit for a failure to complete the work in the time stated. The work was not finished in that time but before its expiration, the city council passed an ordinance extending the time thirty days. The cause was tried without a jury, judgment was entered for plaintiff and defendant appealed. From the declarations of law given, it appears the court found as facts that the work was completed within the period fixed by the last-mentioned ordinance and that the failure to complete it in the time stated in the contract was unavoidable, owing to unfavorable weather. The facts thus found being supported by substantial evidence are accepted by us as proved and bring us to the consideration of the vital questions of whether, first, the time of completion was of the essence of the contract and, second, if it was, had the council the authority to extend the time by ordinance passed before the...