Southern New England R. Corporation v. Marsch
Decision Date | 02 January 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 2487.,2487. |
Citation | 45 F.2d 766 |
Parties | SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND R. CORPORATION v. MARSCH. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Francis P. Garland, of Boston, Mass. (Joseph P. Sullivan and Hurlburt, Jones & Hall, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
Ralph E. Tibbetts, of Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
This action is based on a contract entered into in 1912 for the construction of fifty-eight miles of railroad in Massachusetts between the town of Palmer and the town of Blackstone. The appellee is a resident of Illinois, and the appellant is a Massachusetts corporation. Work was begun by the appellee in the summer of 1912 and continued until November of that year, when the appellant ordered the work suspended. For this suspension the appellee claimed damages, and in August, 1913, an agreement was reached whereby the appellee was to be paid $375,000 as damages and the work was resumed under the original contract modified in certain particulars as set forth in correspondence between counsel for the respective parties.
The contract was not for a lump sum, but compensation was based on unit prices for doing the various classes of work.
The contract contained the provisions usually found in construction contracts, viz.: That monthly estimates of work completed, at the unit prices, should be made up by the engineer for the railroad, and the amount less a certain reserve should be paid monthly to the contractor; that an adjustment of all disputed claims should also be made by the engineer of the railroad acting as umpire or arbitrator, and who, upon the completion of the work, should also make a final estimate of the amount due and unpaid, which would be conclusive upon both parties.
The provisions of the contract relating to the appointment, duties, and authority of the chief engineer, and under which the issues in this case arise, are as follows:
"`Engineer' shall mean the Chief Engineer of the Southern New England Railroad Corporation, or such other person as the Corporation may from time to time appoint in his stead, to exercise the powers and perform the duties by this Contract conferred or imposed upon the Engineer."
* * *"
* * *"(Italics supplied.)
There are other provisions of a similar nature in the contract or specifications defining the duties and powers of the chief engineer, but these sufficiently indicate the extent of his powers and the nature of his duties as bearing on the issues in this case.
During the first part of the work prior to the suspension, one H. R. Safford was chief engineer of the appellant and performed the duties required of him under the contract to the satisfaction of both parties up to the time of suspension; but although he continued to hold the office of chief engineer until March 1, 1914, by apparently a mutual understanding he performed none of the duties required of the chief engineer under the contract after the suspension of work in November, 1912.
Following Mr. Safford's resignation on March 1, 1914, as chief engineer, J. M. Morrison was appointed to that position and continued to serve until long after the contract was finished and this controversy arose, but he never performed any of the duties of chief engineer under the contract.
To perform the ordinary engineering services after the work was resumed in November, 1912, the corporation evidently relied upon one R. D. Garner, who was designated as engineer of construction, one Elmer A. Probst, and his successor, P. Daniel Fitzpatrick, designated as division engineer, and certain so-called resident engineers, who were subordinate to both the division and construction engineers.
From November, 1912, the engineer of construction was the head of the engineering service in connection with this job until January, 1915, when John B. Berry was employed by the appellant as consulting engineer....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
M. De Matteo Const. Co. v. Maine Turnpike Authority
...umpire if the parties so agree. See United States v. Moorman, 1950, 338 U.S. 457, 70 S.Ct. 288, 94 L.Ed. 256; Southern New England R. Corp. v. Marsch, 1 Cir., 1931, 45 F.2d 766; Kerr v. State of Maine, 1928, 127 Me. 142, 142 A. 197; 3 Corbin on Contracts § 652 Plaintiff's second basic argum......
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Rositzky
... ... 329, 72 S. W. 935; Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Jones (C. C. A.) 35 F.(2d) 122 ... The ... ...
-
Wilson Contracting Co. v. State
...are bound by their agreement. See United States v. Moorman, 338 U.S. 457, 70 S.Ct. 288, 94 L.Ed. 256 (1950); Southern New England R. Corp. v. Marsch, 45 F.2d 766 (1st Cir.1931); Mundy v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 67 Fed. 6 (6th Cir.1895); Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. Wilmington Housing Authority......
-
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Twohy Bros. Co.
...cause in the federal court and a judgment for large damages confirmed on appeal, but without discussion of the point in question, Id., 1 Cir., 45 F.2d 766, 767. The District Court found the amount of damages to the contractor for the withdrawal of the commercial haulage of logs by its work ......