Peck-Hammond Co. v. Williams

• Decision Date: 30 April 1900
• Citation: 27 So. 995,77 Miss. 824
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: PECK-HAMMOND CO. v. MARY J. WILLIAMS

27 So. 995

77 Miss. 824

PECK-HAMMOND CO. v. MARY J. WILLIAMS

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 30, 1900

March 1900

FROM the chancery court of Hinds county, first district, HON HENRY C. CONN, Chancellor.

The city of Jackson was complainant, and the appellant and appellee, whom the city interpleaded, were defendants, in the court below.

In 1897 the city of Jackson published an advertisement, or notice to bidders, inviting bids for the construction of a public school building, among other particulars of which notice was one to the effect that the successful bidder would be required to secure the payment of all labor and material employed in the construction of the building. One J. G Wedgeworth, having become the successful bidder, he shortly thereafter entered into a contract with the city to build for it the desired building as described in certain plans and specifications, at a compensation of $ 15, 000, payable on the completion of the building.

In this contract it was stipulated that Wedgeworth would provide, pay for, and furnish all material used in such building, and pay for all labor hired. Wedgeworth executed a bond to secure the due performance of said contract, and one E. C. Williams, the husband of appellee, became one of the sureties thereon. Wedgeworth began the construction of the building in September, 1897 and contracted divers debts for building material and labor. Among them was one with the appellant the Peck-Hammond Co. When the building was about half completed, and there still remained about $ 8, 000 due on the contract price, Wedgeworth executed, on December 27, 1897, an assignment of all moneys due and to become due to him by said city in favor of Mrs. M. J. Williams, in payment of certain debts due said Mrs. Williams for material furnished in the construction of said building. Wedgeworth continued to construct the building, to draw money, to pay for labor, and buy material, and in all other ways exercised full authority and control as before. On February 21, 1898, when the last payment on the building became due, at a meeting of the building committee it proceeded, with Wedgeworth's concurrence, to set aside the amounts due for labor and materials, and, among other amounts set aside by them, was $ 813 for appellant, and $ 113 for the Progress Manufacturing Co., but warrants for the above amounts, though made out on the warrant book in the name of Wedgeworth, were not, in fact, issued, but were held up, Wedgeworth refusing to sign for them so as to authorize their delivery to the parties. On February 24, 1898, Wedgeworth executed another assignment to Mrs. Williams, and filed it and the first assignment with the city clerk. Later, on a written order from Wedgeworth, the attorneys of Mrs. Williams drew from the city $ 1, 062, which was the balance due Wedgeworth from the city after deducting the reservations of $ 813 and $ 113. After the receipt of this balance, Mrs. Williams continued to insist that the two warrants that had been so reserved should be paid to her by virtue of her assignments, and filed a suit in the circuit court against the city for said amounts. The Peek-Hammond Co. also filed suit in the circuit court against the city for the balance due ($ 962.09), where-upon the city filed its bill of interpleader in this case, paid the money into court, and was discharged. Separate answers were filed by Wedgeworth and Mrs. Williams, and the Peck-Hammond Co. and the Progress Manufacturing Co. filed a joint answer, which was made a cross bill. During the progress of the case it was agreed that the Progress Manufacturing Co. should be paid in full which was done, and the contest was thus narrowed to the remaining $ 813, and the claims thereto made by Mrs. Williams and the Peck-Hammond Co. The court below decreed in favor of Mrs. Williams, and this appeal was thereupon prosecuted.

Affirmed.

W. R. Harper, for appellant.

We think a careful examination of the contract between Wedgeworth and the city will show conclusively that the city in withholding the money from Peck-Hammond et al., was acting strictly within its contractual rights. No matter what view this court may take of the assignment to Mrs. Williams, it is certain that the transaction could not affect the contract between the city and Wedgeworth. What is the effect of that contract? It is not necessary for us to determine the disputed point as to whether the advertisement in this case became a part and parcel of Wedgeworth's contract. Many courts hold that such is the case. But whether it did or not, it is certain that such advertisement may be offered and read in aid of the proper interpretation of any ambiguous or uncertain term in the written contract. This is elementary law. Now, when Wedgeworth stipulated in his written contract that he would provide, pay for, and furnish all material, etc., he contracted...