Selden Breck Const. Co. v. Regents of University of Michigan
| Decision Date | 15 August 1921 |
| Docket Number | 6280. |
| Citation | 274 F. 982 |
| Parties | SELDEN BRECK CONSTRUCTION CO. v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Stellwagen MacKay & Wade, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Beaumont Smith & Harris, of Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
This cause is now before the court on demurrer to the declaration.
The action is trespass on the case on promises, and was brought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, a Missouri corporation, by reason of a breach by the defendant, a Michigan corporation, of a certain contract entered into between the parties hereto, for the furnishing by the plaintiff of labor and material for the construction of a library building for the defendant to be erected upon the campus of the University of Michigan, at Ann Arbor Mich., which is under the control of the defendant board of regents. The damages claimed by plaintiff, which exceed the necessary jurisdictional amount, are alleged to have been caused by delays to which the plaintiff was subjected in completing its work under the contract as a result of the failure of defendant to perform certain of its duties under such contract.
The declaration alleges that it was provided in said contract that the work thereunder should be done in accordance with certain drawings and specifications and certain 'General Conditions' therein declared to be a part of said specifications, all of which were to be prepared and furnished by a certain architect; that it was further provided that plaintiff was to have possession of the building then existing, with the exception of the stacks, by March 1, 1917, so that plaintiff could commence operations on that date and could complete the entire work by January 1 1918, the date agreed on for such completion; that defendant appointed the said architect as its agent for the purpose of supervising the construction of said building, passing on the workmanship thereof, and furnishing architects' certificates upon completion of various portions of the building; that in accordance with the terms of said contract, and with the usage and custom pertaining thereto, it was the duty of said architect to furnish to the plaintiff, drawings, details, and information covering certain parts of the work, in order that plaintiff might furnish the same to its subcontractors and proceed promptly with the work according to the contract; that it was of the very essence of said contract that all details and information should be furnished by said architect to plaintiff promptly and without delay, for the reason that the cost of labor and building material was constantly increasing during the period of the war, and that only by the erection of said building as quickly as possible and in strict accordance with the terms of said contract could plaintiff avert serious losses, that defendant failed to deliver possession of the aforesaid building by March 1, 1917, as it had agreed, and did not deliver such possession until the middle of July, 1917, so that plaintiff was unable to commence erection of the new building, according to its contract, until the latter time; that the defendant and its agent, the said architect, in violation of said contract, neglected to furnish to plaintiff the necessary details and information covering work on various sections of the said new building, although often requested so to do; that by reason of the breach by the defendant of the said contract in the respects mentioned, plaintiff was compelled to release its subcontractors from their agreements covering the furnishing of labor and material, and to secure such work from them and from others at a greatly advanced cost, due to the increased cost of building and material at the later period, and that as a further result of such breach of contract, plaintiff was unable to complete said building until several months after the date provided by said contract for such completion, and at a cost greatly in excess of the contract price; and that thereby plaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spitcaufsky v. State Highway Com'n of Missouri
... ... v. Minter, 300 Mo ... 380; United Const. Co. v. St. Louis, 334 Mo. 1006, ... 69 S.W.2d ... Co. v. C. & O ... Ry., 281 F. 904; Selden Breck Const. Co. v. Regents, ... etc., 274 F ... City case Sec. 3, Art. 16 of the Michigan Constitution was ... substantially like the ... ...
-
Northeast Clackamas CE Co-Op. v. Continental Cas. Co.
...cases to such effect are: Bates & Rogers Construction Co. v. Board of Commissioners, D.C., 274 F. 659; Selden Breck Construction Co. v. Regents of University of Michigan, D.C., 274 F. 982; John T. Brady & Co. v. Board of Education, 222 App.Div. 504, 226 N.Y.S. 707; O'Connor v. Smith, 84 Tex......
-
Byrne v. Bellingham Consol. School Dist. No. 301, Whatcom County, 28132.
... ... & Rogers Const. Co. v. Board of Commissioners, D.C.Ohio, ... for the delay. Selden Breck Construction Co. v. Regents ... of iversity of Michigan, D.C., 274 F. 982; Edge ... Moor Iron Co ... ...
-
Studer v. Rasmussen, 2853
...great weight of authority. The rule generally applicable is stated very clearly in the case of Selden Breck Construction Co. v. Regents of University of Michigan, D.C.Mich., 274 F. 982, 985, in which it was stated as '2. It is further urged by defendant that the act of plaintiff in proceedi......