Ryan v. Incorporated Town of Lone Tree

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SHERWIN, J.
• Citation: Ryan v. Incorporated Town of Lone Tree, 98 N.W. 287, 122 Iowa 420 (Iowa 1904)
• Decision Date: 26 January 1904
• Parties: JAMES J. RYAN, v. THE INCORPORATED TOWN OF LONE TREE, Appellant

98 N.W. 287

122 Iowa 420

JAMES J. RYAN, v. THE INCORPORATED TOWN OF LONE TREE, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 26, 1904

Appeal from Johnson District Court.--HON. M. J. WADE, Judge.

SUIT to recover for personal services rendered the defendant. Trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Henry E. Porter for appellant.

Hart & Zmunt and Horan & Devitt for appellee.

OPINION

SHERWIN, J.

The petition pleaded an oral contract with the defendant, by the terms of which the plaintiff was to make a survey of the defendant town, prepare plans and specifications for a sewer and drainage system, and prepare an ordinance establishing the permanent grades of the streets. It was also alleged that the compensation for such work was agreed upon at so much per day and the necessary expense connected therewith. The answer denied that the contract pleaded was made, and denied that the work and labor was performed as stated in the petition. The answer further pleaded that it was the mutual agreement that the plaintiff should establish the grades of its streets and "give the levels for sewers therein," and that he was to receive "six dollars per day and actual expenses, including pay for rodman, for the time required to do said work," and that it was agreed that "such work would require of plaintiff two days field work for himself and rodman and five days office work." It is at once apparent from the foregoing statement of the issues that the question for trial was a very simple and narrow one of fact alone. No issue was made as to the authority of the town to enter into such a contract, nor as to the authority of its mayor to contract for it. These would both have been special defenses, which could not be considered unless pleaded. 14 Encyclopedia Pleading & Practice, 243. The real question in the case was whether the plaintiff agreed to do the work in seven days, and on this question there was such a conflict in the evidence that the verdict of the jury should not be disturbed. The plaintiff's field work and the details provided therefrom in the shape of plans specifications, prints, and ordinance were all accepted and retained by the defendant, and the ordinance was formally adopted by the council.

Twenty-eight assignments of errors on the admission or rejection of testimony are argued with more or less earnestness by the appellant, and it...