Vito v. Town of Simsbury
| Decision Date | 25 July 1913 |
| Citation | 87 A. 722,87 Conn. 261 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | VITO v. TOWN OF SIMSBURY. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Action by Antonio Vito against the town of Simsbury. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant town voted to expend certain moneys for the betterment of its roads, in accordance with chapter 264 of the Public Acts of 1907, as amended by chapter 135 of 1909. Pursuant to said vote the selectmen verbally, but not in writing, applied to the highway commissioner for the improvement of the Tunxis road. The commissioner proceeded in accordance with the act, and the plaintiff, being the successful bidder and having complied with all the requirements, was awarded the contract. The selectmen were not formally notified of the time and place for opening the bids, although the first selectman was actually present. The written contract provided for in the act was duly executed by the commissioner and the contractor, but on the part of the town was signed only by the first selectman, and he was informed that his signature only was required. The plaintiff had completed the work called for by the specifications and the contract, including the macadam road proper and the retaining wall. It does not appear how or by whom the macadam road itself was paid for; the only matter now in dispute being whether the town shall pay the balance due on the retaining wall. Before the work was finished the plaintiff asked and received from the town $935 on account of the work now in dispute. In completing the number of yards called for by the specifications the plaintiff extended the wall over the Simsbury line into the town of Bloomfield, and the plaintiff's final bill, as rendered to the town, included $100 for this portion of the work. The defendant selectmen offered to pay plaintiff's bill, if he would thrown off this $100; but the plaintiff refused to do so, and was afterward told that the town owed him nothing. No apportionment of any part of the expense has ever been made to the town by the highway commissioner. It was admitted, and is found, that the plaintiff furnished the materials and performed the work in dispute, that in all respects it was properly done, and that the amount claimed is a reasonable charge.
James E. Hamilton and Lewis Sperry, both of Hartford, for appellant.
Searls & Russell, of Putnam, for appellee.
BEACH, J. (after stating the facts as above). The specifications provided in detail for the construction of a macadam road which was to be paid for, as the work progressed, by the highway commissioner. It does not appear whether this part of the work has been paid for solely by the state as a trunk line, or whether the town is liable for its proportion of the same. The only matter with which this action is concerned is whether the defendant town is liable to pay the balance due on account of the retaining wall, which is separately specified for in detail, and which, according to the specifications and the contract, is "to be paid for solely by the town." The written contract was signed by the first selectman only, and is not the contract of the town. The plaintiff does not rely on the writing, but relies on the claim that the wall was built under a supposed contract with the town; that the town through its selectmen had knowledge that the wall was being constructed under a supposed contract that the town would pay for it; that while the work was in progress the town recognized the existence of such an agreement, and assented to the continuance of the work by paying $935 on account; that the work itself is a permanent improvement, which has been retained by the town as part of a highway; and that the offer to pay for the wall, except for the portion which extended beyond the town line, was to that extent an acceptance of the finished work on the terms specified in the imperfectly executed contract. The defendant town, in its answer to the amended complaint, denies that it ever authorized the acceptance of the work, or knew that it was being done for the town, and alleges that the part payment above referred to was made under a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonner v. City of New Haven
... ... Waterbury, 266 Conn. 68, 87, 831 A.2d 211 ... (2003) (holding that former employee and town had equal ... bargaining power) ... "A contract must be construed ... manner." (Emphasis omitted.) Vito v. Simsbury, ... 87 Conn. 261, 265, 87 A. 722 (1913). The aforementioned ... ...
-
Pepe v. City of New Britain, 12950
...it was not executed according to law." 7 Bridgeport Brass Co. v. Drew, 102 Conn. 206, 215, 128 A. 413 (1925); see Vito v. Simsbury, 87 Conn. 261, 265, 87 A. 722 (1913); Rocky Hill v. Hollister, 59 Conn. 434, 447, 22 A. 290 (1890); see also John J. Brennan Construction Corporation, Inc. v. S......
-
Royal School Laboratories, Inc. v. Town of Watertown
...respect may recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of goods and services retained by a municipality. Vito v. Town of Simsbury, 87 Conn. 261, 87 A. 722 (1913); Loomis v. Fifth School District, 109 Conn. 700, 145 A. 571 (1929); Leverty & Hurley Co. v. City of Danbury, 7 Conn.Sup. ......
-
Royal School Laboratories, Inc. v. Town of Watertown
...supplies and equipment purchased under invalid contracts, it is liable for their purchase price". Similarly, Vito v. Town of Simsbury, 87 Conn. 261, 265, 87 A. 722, 724 (1913), holds that, although a municipality is not liable on implied contracts which would be ultra vires if made in expre......