Leon County v. Vann

• Decision Date: 24 May 1894
• Citation: Leon County v. Vann, 27 S.W. 258, 86 Tex. 707 (Tex. 1894)
• Parties: LEON COUNTY v. VANN et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

27 S.W. 258

LEON COUNTY v. VANN et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 24, 1894.

Certified questions from court of civil appeals of fifth supreme judicial district.

Action by Leon county against J. E. Vann and Robertson county to recover of defendant Vann damages for breach of a contract for the erection of a bridge by him for plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment in favor of defendant Vann, to the court of civil appeals, which certified certain questions to the supreme court.

Leon county, by its county judge, H. B. Pruitt, filed a petition against J. E. Vann and Robertson county, alleging substantially that about the 30th of September, 1889, the commissioners' court of Leon county, through its authorized agents, contracted with defendant Vann to rebuild about 60 feet on the middle span of a bridge across the Navasoto river, and repair the old work. Vann agreed to rebuild that portion of the bridge across the channel of the river (being about 60 feet) out of heart post oak, and to repair the flooring of the bridge with good lumber, the work to be done in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manner, and he guarantied his work for a period of three years. To secure a performance of the contract and the guaranty aforesaid, he promised to execute a bond to the county judge of Leon county in the sum of $400, with sureties; and, for the work so done, Leon county agreed to pay Vann the sum of $400, and afterwards did pay him the sum of $400 less $20, deducted for defective flooring placed in one of the outside approaches. That the work was defectively and negligently done. That the part rebuilt was not sufficiently braced and fastened. That the timbers used were defective and too small, and were warped by the sun and weight upon them. That the work was not done in a workmanlike and substantial manner, and the bridge was unsafe for public travel. That plaintiff called on defendant to make good his guaranty, and repair said bridge, and defendant refused. That defendant fraudulently failed to execute the bond he agreed to make. That said bridge was so defectively built by defendant Vann that about the 1st of October. 1890, it fell with its own weight, and killed a traveler. That plaintiff is damaged $450. That $100 of the contract price paid to Vann was paid by Robertson county, and the suit is brought for the use and benefit of Robertson county, if said county should be held to have an interest in the recovery. The defendant Vann answered by general d...