Weitz v. Independent Dist. of Des Moines
| Decision Date | 07 February 1890 |
| Citation | 79 Iowa 423,44 N.W. 696 |
| Parties | WEITZ v. INDEPENDENT DISTRICT OF DES MOINES. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Polk county; MARCUS KAVANAUGH, Jr., Judge.
Action to recover damages for the repudiation by defendant of a contract to build a school-house, whereby, and by other acts, plaintiff was prevented from performing such contracts. A judgment was rendered upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.St. John, Stevenson & Thisenaud, for appellant.
1. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant caused its secretary to publish a notice inviting sealed proposals for building a house to be occupied by a high school; that plaintiff responded to this invitation, and gave defendant a proposal for the work; and that defendant opened the bids received under the notice, and examined the same, and accepted plaintiff's bid, and caused plaintiff to be notified thereof. It is further alleged that plaintiff fully performed the contract which they alleged was entered into by the acceptance of this proposal, but that defendant repudiated the contract, and prevented plaintiff from performing it on his part. The allegations of the petition, except as to the publication of notice and the employment of architects, were denied in the answer. By an amendment thereto the defendant alleges that plaintiff and others submitted proposals for the work, and the directors of the defendant, believing that another bid lower than plaintiff's was not made by a responsible person, at a meeting of the directors voted to accept plaintiff's bid, which did not provide for the time for the completion of the building, nor the manner of making payments therefor, and it was understood by both that a written contract should be executed by the parties, and a bond, approved by the defendant's directors, should be executed by plaintiff, as security for the performance of the contract, and that after the adjournment of the meeting, when the vote for accepting plaintiff's proposition was had, it was discovered by defendant's directors that plaintiff was not the lowest bidder, but that another bid, lower than plaintiff's, was made by a responsible bidder. Upon motion of plaintiff the district court struck from the files this amendment to the answer, on the ground that it was immaterial. Evidence was introduced tending to show the acceptance of plaintiff's bid by a resolution of the defendant's directors, and the refusal of defendant to permit the plaintiff to do the work. It was also shown that another bidder had proposed to do the work for $1,000 less than plaintiff's offer. The defendant offered to prove that certain lower bidders were responsible, and that their bid was rejected because of the fact that they were not known to be responsible, and that, after the adjournment of the meeting at which the resolution was adopted accepting plaintiff's bid, the directors of defendant discovered that the lower bidders were responsible. This evidence was rejected, the court holding that the defendant became bound by the acceptance of the directors, which, with the proposal, constituted a contract between the parties. An instruction to this effect was given to the jury. Upon these rulings of the court certain questions arise, the determination of which will prove decisive of the case.
An instruction of the court in the following language plainly expresses the view of the district court as to the facts and the law of the case: Upon these expressions of the view of the law and facts held by the court below, certain questions arise which are decisive of the case.
2. The statute requires that contracts of the character of the one in the suit for the construction of a school-house ...
To continue reading
Request your trial