Sexton v. Cook Cnty.

• Decision Date: 15 May 1885
• Citation: 28 N.E. 608,114 Ill. 174
• Parties: SEXTON v. COOK COUNTY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

114 Ill. 174

28 N.E. 608

SEXTON

v.COOK COUNTY.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 15, 1885.

Appeal from appellate court, second district; JOSIAH McROBERTS, Judge.

Patrick J. Sexton sued Cook county for the contract price of the dome wall of the county court-house, alleging that he had a contract to build the same, but was prevented by order of the county board. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

In proof of his contract plaintiff relied on the following resolution of the county board and orders of the architect in charge: ‘Resolved, that the contractor on the new court house, P. J. Sexton, be, and he is hereby, instructed to build as much of the foundation of the dome, under the supervision of the architect, as is necessary to inclose the building, subject to the architect's valuation of the same.’ The architect, J. J. Egan, made the following schedule of prices, which was approved by the joint committee on building and public service, and dated August 2, 1877: ‘Dressed ashlar masonry and dressed dimension masonry, throughout, at eighty cents per cubic foot; concrete, in Phinney's cement, at $16 per cubic yard; excavation, $1.50 per cubic yard; cutting and trimming pile-heads, thirty cents each; brick laid in cement and lime, half and half, and grouted, each course best selected brick, to full satisfaction of architect, $12 per thousand. Pile-heads to be measured in concrete, and excavation to pay for expense of scooping out between pileheads. Cut-stonearches and skewbacks to be built on estimated values. All walls measured solid. All work to be in strict accordance with specifications. I fix prices for dome work at the above schedule.’ The architect afterwards gave plaintiff the following orders: ‘In compliance with the instruction of joint committee on buildings and service, you will please proceed to prepare and set the cut-stone work of county's half of the dome of Cook county court-house, up to the top of the main water-table, in accordance with the plans and details of the same herewith submitted, at a cost of $15,375.’ (Dated October 27, 1877.) ‘November 3, 1877. P. J. Sexton: You will please extend the work of the dome so as to comprise the full half of the entire, up to the level of the first or main floor, including the cut-stone work of the basement of the county's half of the dome, and thence continue the main internal piers complete up to the roof, subject to the schedule of prices dated August 2, 1877, and signed by me. All cut stone to be subject to special contracts, and to be submitted to the joint committee for approval before being executed. J. J. EGAN.’ Both of these papers were indorsed ‘Approved’ by the joint committee on public buildings. Sexton proceeded with the work till he was stopped by order of the county board. He recovered for all the work he did, but not for the profits of that he was prevented from doing. This judgment was affirmed in the appellate court, and he appeals to the supreme court.Sweet, Haskell & Grosscup

, for appellant.

William Law, Jr., and E. R. Bliss, for appellee.

SHELDON, J.

The errors assigned are the refusing of an instruction asked by the plaintiff, and the giving of two asked by the defendant. The refused instruction asked by plaintiff was: ‘If the jury believe, from the evidence in reference to the dome contract, that the board of county commissioners of Cook county passed a resolution authorizing and instructing P. J. Sexton to build as much of the foundation of the dome, under the supervision of the architect, as is necessary to inclose the building, subject to the architect's valuation of the same, and the jury further believe that one of the walls of the foundation of said dome formed also a portion of the west wall of the court-house, and said building could not be inclosed without running up said wall, and that thereafter the plaintiff took said order to James J. Egan, the architect of the court-house, and said architect in one order fixed the prices of said work, and in another order defined the manner, of construction of said dome, and the extent and limits thereof, and the said Sexton thereupon proceeded and did a portion of the work, and was stopped by the defendant, and on his part was prepared and ready and willing to do all of said work, then Sexton is entitled to recover the value of the work done under the contract, and the value of the contract for work not done; or, in other words, he is entitled to the value of the work which he has done, and the profits on the work which remained to be done and was not done.’ So much of the instruction as is printed in italics the court struck out, and gave the residue of the instruction to the jury. The two instructions given for the defendant were: ‘That the resolution of the county board of Cook county adopted July 30, 1877, only authorized the building by Sexton of as much of the foundation of the dome as was necessary to inclose the building; and, if the jury believe from the evidence that the foundation of the dome did not extent above the level of the basement floor of the court-house, then such resolution, when acted upon by Sexton, did not constitute a contract between him and the county of Cook for the building of such dome above such foundations, nor above the level of such basement floor; and the architect, under such resolution, had no power or authority, by virtue of such resolution, to make a valuation of...