Langford v. Sanger

• Decision Date: 31 March 1867
• Citation: 40 Mo. 160
• Parties: JAMES P. LANGFORD, FANNY B. STEPHENSON (EXECUTRIX OF JAMES N. STEPHENSON, DEC'D), JACOB GRIMM, AND HENRY GRIMM, Respondents, v. LORENZO P. SANGER, HART S. STEWART, JAMES S. SANGER, J. A. HENRICKS, ERVIN CAMP, WILSON KING, WILLIAM KELLY, WILLIAM TRUESDAIL, AND WILLIAM GALLAGHER, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

40 Mo. 160

JAMES P. LANGFORD, FANNY B. STEPHENSON (EXECUTRIX OF JAMES N. STEPHENSON, DEC'D), JACOB GRIMM, AND HENRY GRIMM, Respondents,

v.LORENZO P. SANGER, HART S. STEWART, JAMES S. SANGER, J. A. HENRICKS, ERVIN CAMP, WILSON KING, WILLIAM KELLY, WILLIAM TRUESDAIL, AND WILLIAM GALLAGHER, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1867.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

The amended petition was as follows:

“Plaintiffs state that they as partners, doing business under the name and style of Langford, Stephenson & Co., entered into a contract or articles of agreement, in writing, with the above named defendants, doing business under the name and style of Sanger, Camp & Co., on the sixth day of February, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, for the framing and erection of fifteen bridges upon the Illinois division of the Ohio and Mississippi railroad, as follows: that is to say, on section 84, Nicholson creek, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 87, Brush creek, two bridges, each 60 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 89, Bear creek, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 94, Sennway creek, one bridge, 30 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 96, Sennway creek, one bridge, 30 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 101, Sheppard river, one bridge, 40 feet span and 68 1-2 degrees angle; on section 106, branch of Muddy, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 109, Lambert's branch, one bridge, 30 feet span and 56 degrees angle; on section 111, Gardner river, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 113, Sandy Branch, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 122, Bompas creek, one bridge, 60 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 126, branch of Mud creek, one bridge, 40 feet span and 90 degrees angle; on section 129, Mud creek, one bridge, 60 feet span and 90 degrees angle; and on section 135, Indian creek, one bridge, 60 feet span and 90 degrees angle. That by the terms of the said contract the said defendants, as such company, bound themselves to deliver the materials for the erection of said bridges at the end of the track of said railroad for such a number of said bridges as might be most convenient for them, the defendants, or at the bridge sites, and also to pay the plaintiffs the cost of all necessary transportation of materials for the erection of said bridges, and also to pay the plaintiffs the sum of six dollars per lineal foot (lineal measure) for the framing and erection of the said bridges, within twenty days after the monthly estimates should be rendered by the engineer in charge of the said railroad, first reserving ten per cent. of each estimate made as aforesaid, as security for the completion of the plaintiffs' part of the said contract;--that the plaintiffs bound themselves by the said contract to frame and erect the said bridges according to the plans and specifications to be furnished by the division engineer of said road, for the price aforesaid; and to take the materials for said bridges at the end of the track of said road, and to transport the same to the sites of the said bridges for the actual cost of the transportation, for so much of the materials for the erection of the said bridges as might not be otherwise delivered; and to erect the said bridges in advance of the laying of the tract of the said road, so that the same should not be delayed by the non-erection of the said bridges.

Plaintiffs further state that in pursuance of their part of the said contract they actually framed and erected the said bridges according to the plans and specifications furnished them by the engineer in charge of the said division of the said railroad, and that the framing and erection of the said bridges at the prices agreed upon by the plaintiffs and defendants, as expressed in said contract, amounted in the aggregate to the sum...