Rhea County v. Sneed
| Decision Date | 10 November 1900 |
| Citation | 58 S.W. 1063 |
| Parties | RHEA COUNTY v. SNEED. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Action by Robert Sneed against Rhea county to recover for services rendered for a contractor in constructing a county bridge. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant brings error. Reversed.
John O. Benson and A. P. Haggard, for plaintiff in error. B. G. McKenzie, for defendant in error.
Under the appointment and authority of the county court of Rhea county, three commissioners contracted with the Groton Bridge Company to erect a bridge across Richland creek, in that county, at the price of $1,875, to be paid as follows: $1,000 when the substructure should be ready for the superstructure, and the remaining $875 when the entire structure should be completed. For some unexplained reason, the commissioners failed to exact the contractor's bond contemplated by chapter 182 of the Acts of 1899, and it was not executed. The Groton Bridge Company sublet the construction of the substructure to Thompson, and he in turn sublet it to Nipper, who employed numerous laborers to do the work for him. While inspecting the work as it progressed, the commissioners, on different occasions, saw these laborers engaged upon the masonry in the abutments, but assumed no control of them, and made no contract with them. Robert Sneed was one of these laborers. When his services were ended, and his employer, Nipper, had paid him only a part of the compensation due him, he demanded the residue from the commissioners, who refused to pay it, upon the ground that they had not employed him, and therefore owed him nothing. This demand was made and payment refused after the substructure was completed, before final settlement with the original contractor, and when the county still owed it the latter installment of $875. After the bridge had been finished, accepted, and paid for, Sneed, to whom the balance was still due from Nipper, brought this suit to recover the amount thereof from the county. The circuit judge tried the case without a jury, and adjudged the county liable, "both at common law and because of the failure of the commissioners to take bond as required by chapter 182, Acts 1899," for the sum claimed, and the county appealed in error.
The learned trial judge was in error. Clearly, common-law responsibility on the part of the county for the debt could properly be based alone upon an express or an implied contract, and neither of these is shown in the proof. It is not contended that Sneed had an express contract with the county; nor is the fact that the commissioners frequently saw him with other laborers at work on the masonry, and afterwards accepted the completed structure, sufficient to raise an implied promise on the part of the county in his favor. They engaged the Groton Bridge Company to furnish a finished structure for an agreed price, and had the legal right to assume that it would pay for all labor and material employed, and by paying that price to that company they absolved the county from all liability for the benefits received.
If the Groton Bridge Company had abandoned its contract, and Sneed, with the knowledge of the commissioners, had then constructed the bridge, and it had been accepted, the case would be like...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ninth Sch. Dist. of Manchester v. Rogers
...has no concern.’ Freeman v. Chanute, 63 Kan. 573, 578, 66 P. 647, 649; Ihk v. Duluth, 58 Minn. 182, 59 N. W. 960;Rhea County v. Sneed, 105 Tenn. 581, 58 S. W. 1063;Blanchard v. Burns, 110 Ark. 515, 162 S. W. 63,49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1199;McGovern v. Boston, 229 Mass. 394, 397, 118 N. E. 667. ......
-
Lacefield v. Blount
...the doctrine of implied liability of counties has been applied, as was held in Madison County v. Gibbs, 77 Tenn. 383; Rhea County v. Sneed, 105 Tenn. 581, 58 S.W. 1063, such doctrine has been applied only where counties had statutory authority to create the debt involved, but there was some......
-
Oak Grove Const. Co. v. Jefferson County
... ... decisions are fully and clearly to the same effect ... Madison County v. Gibbs, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 383, 386; ... Land Co. v. Jellico, supra; Rhea Co. v. Sneed, 105 ... Tenn. 581, 584, 58 S.W. 1063. Defendant cannot deny that ... plaintiff may sue under the contract, and thus defeat the ... ...
-
Air Temperature, Inc. v. Morris
...or negligent public officials who might obligate the county for untold items totaling huge sums of money. See also, Rhea County v. Sneed (1900) 105 Tenn. 581, 58 S.W. 1063 wherein a county failed to require the execution of a labor and material bond on a bridge construction contract. At the......