Lundin v. Township of Butternut Valley
| Decision Date | 22 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | 26,077 |
| Citation | 214 N.W. 888,172 Minn. 259 |
| Parties | FRED LUNDIN v. TOWNSHIP OF BUTTERNUT VALLEY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Plaintiff appealed from an order of the district court for Blue Earth county, Comstock, J., denying his motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Bridge contract held invalid.
A township cannot let a valid bridge contract where the price exceeds $500, unless plans and specifications are on file with the town clerk when bids are called for. G.S. 1923 § 2595. And even a compliance with that statute will not make a valid contract unless a bond is filed when the contract is executed as provided by G.S. 1923, § 9700. For noncompliance with both statutes the court properly ruled that no recovery could be had upon the contract alleged.
No recovery for reasonable value because of lack of evidence.
Nor could there be any recovery for the reasonable value of the labor and material furnished, for plaintiff offered no evidence to prove that the town had received any benefit therefrom or had appropriated any part to its beneficial use, the bridge upon which the same were expended having collapsed before it was finished or accepted by the town.
Bridges, 9 C.J. p. 439 n. 26; p. 442 n. 41, 44 New.
See note in 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1120; 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) 73; 19 R.C.L. 1064; 3 R.C.L. Supp. 992; 5 R.C.L. Supp. 1056.
C. J. Laurisch, for appellant.
H. L. & J. W. Schmitt, for respondent.
Appeal from an order denying a new trial, after a dismissal on defendant's motion.
Plaintiff's action was to recover the agreed price and reasonable value for constructing a concrete bridge across a drainage ditch in the defendant township. The town board advertised for bids. No plans were on file with the clerk. Plaintiff and another contractor appeared. Each presented a so-called sketch and rough specifications with a bid, plaintiff's being for $1,578. That being the lower bid was accepted, and an entry thereof made in the minutes of the board. Later the board concluded to add four feet to the wings of the bridge, and agreed to pay plaintiff $80 additional therefor. This contract was likewise made a matter of record by the board. The engineer in charge of the drainage ditch was requested to oversee the construction, and to some extent the chairman of the board also looked after the job. It appears that plaintiff went ahead with the construction of the bridge strictly according to the agreements, and finished pouring the last concrete on the 18th of September, 1923. At that time the chairman of the board expressed a desire to fill the approaches to the bridge while a dredging machine was there and available. Plaintiff told the chairman this could not be done safely until the concrete in the abutments had had time to set, which would need about 30 days, and that, if they undertook to fill in before such time, they would have to assume the risk. In the absence of plaintiff the fill was made on the 19th or 20th of September and the bridge collapsed and became wholly useless, causing an obstruction in the ditch which had to be removed.
Can there be any recovery against the township either on contract or for the reasonable value of the work? The trial court held the contract void and excluded proof of reasonable value, and rightly so. Two statutes stand in the way of giving any binding effect to the contract. L. 1921, p 406, c. 323, § 55 (G.S. 1923, § 2595) provides: "No contract for the construction or erection of a bridge shall be entered into by any county, town, village or city of the fourth class where the contract price of such bridge exceeds the sum of five hundred ($500.00) dollars," unless plans and specifications for the proposed bridge have been filed with the town clerk (if the town is to enter the contract) at least three weeks prior to the time bids are to be considered, and the published notice must refer to the fact that the plans and specifications are so filed. There was no compliance with this statute. G.S. 1923, § 9700, provides: "No contract with the state, or with any municipal corporation or other public board or body thereof, for the doing of any public work, shall be valid for any purpose, unless the contractor shall give bond," etc. No bond was given by plaintiff. It is plain that the contract on which plaintiff relies must be held void. Furthermore, there could be no recovery even though valid, for the bridge was neither completed nor accepted. The forms and supports for the concrete had not been removed when the bridge fell. Plaintiff offered to prove that he had paid for all labor and material so as to bring his contract from under the ban of § 9700 as applied in State ex rel. Morris v. Clark, 116 Minn. 500, 134 N.W. 129, 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) 43,...
To continue reading
Request your trial