Moore v. County of Ramsey

• Decision Date: 27 March 1908
• Docket Number: Nos. 15,491-(215).,s. 15,491-(215).
• Citation: 104 Minn. 30
• Parties: DAVID W. MOORE v. COUNTY OF RAMSEY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

104 Minn. 30

DAVID W. MOORE v. COUNTY OF RAMSEY.¹

Nos. 15,491-(215).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 27, 1908.

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $1,314.30 upon a contract for grading a certain road, also to have the contract amended by adding to the specifications attached thereto the words

"There will be no allowance for overhaul on material moved two thousand feet, or less." The case was tried before Kelly, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $91.70. From an order denying plaintiff's motion to set aside the decision and for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Reversed and new trial granted.

Walter L. Chapin, for appellant.

Richard D. O'Brien and Patrick J. Ryan, for respondent.

JAGGARD, J.

The main contention of plaintiff is that he should be allowed a reasonable sum, under a contract with defendant to grade a certain road above its level, for being compelled to haul clay and gravel required for the work a greater distance than two thousand feet. The controversy turns on the following provision of the specifications: "There will be no allowance for overhaul on material moved 2,000 feet or less." Inferentially there would be an allowance for overhaul on material moved more than two thousand feet. Three sets of specifications were prepared — one for the use of the county auditor and board of county commissioners; another to be given the contractor who secured the job; a third for use in the surveyor's office. Both the set in the surveyor's office and the contractor's set contained the clause just quoted. The set in the county auditor's office did not contain it. The county auditor advertised for bids for proposals as per plans and specifications on file in the office of the county surveyor. Plaintiff tendered a bid expressly in accordance with the plans and specifications in the office of the county surveyor. The bond accompanying this bid also referred to the plans and specifications in the office of the county surveyor. This bid and bond were approved by the county commissioners. The county attorney was directed to prepare the contract. The contract expressly referred to "the plans and specifications therefor, and the bid or proposal [of the contractor] * * * which said plans, specifications, and proposal are hereto annexed and made a part of this contract." In the specifications actually annexed the clause did not appear. The complaint, setting forth these facts, asked for the...