Richardson v. Grant County
Decision Date | 28 December 1883 |
Citation | 27 F. 495 |
Parties | RICHARDSON v. GRANT CO. |
Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana |
McDonald Butler & Mason, for plaintiff.
Harrison Miller & Elam, for defendant.
The complaint charges an indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiff in the sum of $24,000 for materials furnished, work and labor done, skill bestowed, and money paid out by the plaintiff, at the special instance of the defendant's board of commissioners, in the construction of a court-house for the defendant. A proper bill of particulars is filed, and it is averred that the board of commissioners for the county has received, and is in the enjoyment of, the said work and labor and materials. The fourth paragraph of answer is to the effect that no plans and specifications for the work were ever made and adopted by the board of commissioners, and filed as required by law, and no advertisement made for bids for doing the work and furnishing the materials; nor were any bids presented to, or received by, the board. To this answer the plaintiff has demurred for want of facts stated sufficient to constitute a good defense to the action.
By the first section of an act of the Indiana legislature, which took effect August 24, 1875, it is provided that The next 'section provides that when such plans and specifications shall have been adopted and filed, the board shall not contract for or let the proposed work 'until it has advertised such letting, and requested bids for the same,' in a manner prescribed, 'with a reference to such plans and specifications: provided, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to buildings when the cost of the same shall not exceed five hundred dollars. ' The next section requires the board to let the contract to the lowest bidder, and to require of him bond and security for the faithful performance of the work according to the plans and specifications so deposited. Rev. St. 1881, Secs. 4243-4245.
It is conceded, as I understand, that under these statutory provisions no special contract for the work done by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoffman v. City of Muscatine, 39941.
...1917A, 1260;Dickinson v. Poughkeepsie, 75 N. Y. 65;Cawker v. Central Bitulithic Paving Co., 121 N. W. 888, 140 Wis. 25;Richardson v. Grant County (C. C.) 27 F. 495;Bristol v. Dominion National Bank (Va.) 149 S. E. 632;Springfield Milling Co. v. Lane County, 5 Or. 265;Detroit v. Robinson, 38......
-
Hoffman v. City of Muscatine
... ... This ... court has said in Johnson County Savings Bank v. City of ... Creston, 212 Iowa 929, 231 N.W. 705, that: ... "It ... 65; Cawker v. Central Bitulithic Paving Co., 121 ... N.W. 888, 140 Wis. 25; Richardson v. Grant County, ... 27 F. 495; Bristol v. Dominion [212 Iowa 899] ... National Bank, 153 Va ... ...
-
Grady v. City of Livingston
... ... 9, 1943 ... Appeal ... from District Court, Sixth District, Park County; S.D ... McKinnon, Judge ... Four ... taxpayers' actions by John Grady and ... 23, 23 Am.Rep. 144; Roemheld v. City of ... Chicago, 231 Ill. 467, 83 N.E. 291; Richardson v ... Grant County, C. C., 27 F. 495; Norbeck & Nicholsen ... Co. v. State, 32 S.D. 189, 142 ... ...
-
Johnson County Sav. Bank v. City of Creston
...150, 152 P. 293; Dickinson v. Poughkeepsie, 75 N.Y. 65; Cawker v. Central Bitulithic Paving Co., 121 N.W. 888, 140 Wis. 25; Richardson v. Grant County, 27 F. 495; Bristol v. Dominion National Bank, 153 Va. 71, S.E. 632; Springfield Milling Co. v. Lane County, 5 Ore. 265; Detroit v. Robinson......