Village of Pillager v. Hewett
| Decision Date | 08 June 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,798 - (111) |
| Citation | 107 N.W. 815,98 Minn. 265 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF PILLAGER v. S. M. HEWETT |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, John Day Smith, J., denying a motion for a new trial after a trial before Elliott, J., who found in favor of defendant. Affirmed.
Recovery of Money Paid.
The plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract, which was in every respect fair and reasonable, for the building of a bridge by the defendant for the plaintiff. The plaintiff had power to make the contract, but by reason of its failure to comply with the provisions of the statute as to the letting of the contract, it was void. The defendant in good faith performed the contract on his part, and built the bridge in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor. The plaintiff accepted the bridge, and voluntarily paid to the defendant therefor $500 in cash and $1,300 in its bonds. The bridge was carried away by a flood. This is an action to recover from the defendant the $500 and the bonds, or the amount thereof. Held, that the plaintiff cannot recover.
New Trial.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial on the ground of plaintiff's surprise by the testimony of a witness called by the defendant.
A. T Larson, for appellant.
James D. Shearer and Belden, Jamison & Shearer, for respondent.
*T, C.J. [2]
Action to recover from the defendant the sum of $500 and village bonds to the amount of $1,300 paid and delivered by the plaintiff village to the defendant upon an alleged void contract for building a bridge for the village by the defendant. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. Findings of fact were made by the court, and as a conclusion of law, judgment was ordered for the defendant denying the plaintiff any relief, and the plaintiff appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
The principal question presented by the record for our consideration is whether the conclusion of law of the trial court was justified by the facts found, which, briefly stated, are these: The plaintiff is a village duly organized by virtue of Laws 1885, p. 148, c. 145. On October 9, 1903, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract for the erection by the defendant of a combination bridge, according to plans and specifications agreed upon, over the Crow Wing river. The defendant built the bridge in all respects according to the plans and specifications and completed it April 1, 1904. Shortly thereafter the village council inspected the bridge and accepted the same. The plaintiff paid to the defendant during the month of March, 1904, the sum of $500 in money, and delivered to him its bonds in the sum of $1,300 pursuant to the contract for the building of the bridge, but has refused to pay the balance of the contract price for building the bridge on the ground that the contract is void. The contract was within the power of the plaintiff under the laws of this state, but was not entered into in the manner and form provided and required by the statutes, but it was entered into privately, and not upon and after advertisements for bids, as is required by law. Defendant, however, fully complied with the contract and the same is an executed contract on his part and has been partially executed by the plaintiff by the payment of the money and the delivery of the bonds. The contract in question was entered into in good faith, and the price to be paid for the bridge thereunder was fair and reasonable; the profits made by the defendant under the contract were the usual profits on such structures, the bridge was necessary for the village, appropriate to the place, such as was required by the physical conditions, and the village was justified in contracting for and constructing it. It conclusively appears from the evidence that after the acceptance of the bridge it was carried away by a flood.
We have, then, a case where the plaintiff, a municipal corporation, was authorized by law to enter into a valid contract for the building of a bridge, and in form did so with the defendant, but by reason of its failure to comply with the details required by the statute (Laws 1885, p. 170 c. 145, § 51), in letting the contract, it was void. It may be conceded that the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial