Streeter v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago

• Decision Date: 03 October 1905
• Docket Number: 1,067.
• Citation: 143 F. 476
• Parties: STREETER et al. v. SANITARY DIST. OF CHICAGO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

143 F. 476

STREETER et al. v. SANITARY DIST. OF CHICAGO.

No. 1,067.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 3, 1905

Adams A. Goodrich, for plaintiffs in error.

Seymour Jones, for defendant in error.

Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.

BAKER Circuit Judge, after making the foregoing statement of the case, .

If an action at law is tried by the court without a jury, the improper admission or rejection of evidence is not of itself necessarily a ground for reversal. The evidence improperly admitted or rejected must be of such a kind and force that it should work a different result from that arrived at by the trial court. Streeter v. Sanitary District, 133 F 124, 66 C.C.A. 190.

During the progress of the work the plaintiffs sought an amendment of their contract whereby they would receive larger pay. The matter was referred by the board to a special committee, who brought in a majority report recommending that no change in the contract be made, and a minority report, signed by one member, favorable to giving the plaintiffs increased compensation. The majority report was adopted by the board an no change in the contract was made. The court refused to admit the minority report in evidence. The present action at law was based by the plaintiffs upon their contract as originally executed. It is impossible to see how the admission in evidence of the minority report of one member of the special committee could affect the result at which the court arrived.

And while the question of increased pay for the plaintiffs was under consideration, the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the board, in which they stated the reasons why they were asking the change in the contract. This letter was offered in evidence by the plaintiffs, and rejected by the court. What we have said in regard to the minority report applies as well to this letter.

After the plaintiffs had been at work for some time, the board acting under a reservation in the contract, employed Angus &amp Gindele at a smaller rate of compensation to complete the plaintiffs' contract for them. Thereafter the chief engineer filed five reports with the board, in which he reported the amount of work done from time to time, the rates in the original contract, the prices at which the work had been let, and stated that the difference was a credit in favor of the plaintiffs. These reports were offered in evidence by the plaintiffs, and...