The City of Kansas City v. Hanson

• Decision Date: 07 October 1899
• Docket Number: 11407
• Citation: 60 Kan. 833,58 P. 474
• Parties: THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY v. NEILS HANSON et al
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

58 P. 474

60 Kan. 833

THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY v. NEILS HANSON et al

No. 11407

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 7, 1899

Decided July, 1899.

Error from court of appeals, northern department; JOHN H. MAHAN ABIJAH WELLS, and SAMUEL W. MCELROY, judges.

Judgment reversed.

F. D Hutchings, city attorney, and T. A. Pollock, city counselor for plaintiff in error.

True & True, for defendants in error.

OPINION

DOSTER, C. J.:

This was an action of injunction to restrain the city of Kansas City from enforcing the collection of an assessment on abutting property for the purpose of paying for a street pavement, on the ground that the city council in making the contract for the improvement had included therein the estimated cost of repairs of the pavement for five years subsequent to the completion of the work. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, which judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals. Error is prosecuted to this court. The case is determinable upon the construction of the provisions of the contract in question. These read as follows:

"The contractor expressly agrees to give a good and substantial bond to maintain in good order the aforesaid pavement for five years after the date of its acceptance, and binds himself, his heirs and assigns, to make all repairs which may, from any imperfection in said work or material, or from any crumbling or disintegration of the material, become necessary within that time; and contractor shall, whenever notified by the city engineer that repairs are necessary, at once make such repairs at his own expense, and if they are not made within fifteen days after the date of said notice, the city engineer shall cause such repairs to be made at the expense and cost of the said contractor.

"It is further agreed that whenever any repairs in the street are made necessary from the construction of sewers, laying of pipes or telegraph wires, or from any other disturbance of the pavement by parties acting under permit issued by the city engineer, the contractor shall, on notification from the city engineer, immediately cause all necessary repairs in conformity with the specifications for this class of work. The cost of such repairs, exclusive of back filling, which should be done by the parties holding the permit given in the same manner as now required by existing ordinances, shall be paid for at the full contract price for a square yard of new pavement, out of the deposit made by the one holding the permit, upon notice of completion from the city engineer."

In the construction of a contract inter partes, as likewise other written instruments, the writing as a whole, as well as the particular part under consideration, must be looked at. Every portion of it must be given due weight and the intent of the parties collected out of all its terms. So doing in this case, there does not seem to be much difficulty in arriving at a correct conclusion as to the meaning of the contract. The first clause, standing by itself, would seem to uphold the contention of the defendants in error. It reads as follows: "The contractor expressly agrees to give a good and substantial bond to maintain in good order the aforesaid pavement for five years after the date of its acceptance." Thus far...