De Witt v. Itasca-Mantrap Co-Op. Electrical Ass'n
Decision Date | 09 July 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 33505.,33505. |
Citation | 10 N.W.2d 715,215 Minn. 551 |
Parties | DE WITT v. ITASCA-MANTRAP CO-OP. ELECTRICAL ASS'N et al. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hubbard County; Alfred L. Thwing, Judge.
Action by H. J. De Witt against Itasca-Mantrap Cooperative Electrical Association for a balance due under contract for the sale and delivery of poles, wherein the defendant interposed counterclaims for breach of contract and impleaded the Maryland Casualty Company, surety on plaintiff's performance bond, as an additional defendant. From an order sustaining demurrers to defendant's counterclaims, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed and case remanded for further proceedings.
DeLury & Peterson, of Walker, for appellant.
Howard W. Anderson, of Grand Rapids, for respondent.
Abbott, MacPherran, Dancer, Zuger & Montague, of Duluth, for impleaded defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff brought action against the Itasca-Mantrap Cooperative Electrical Association (hereinafter called the association) for a balance due him under a contract for the sale and delivery of poles for the latter's rural electric distribution system. The association answered, claiming that certain of the poles delivered did not comply with agreed specifications, and interposed counterclaims for the cost of replacing them. Defendant Maryland Casualty Company, surety on plaintiff's performance bond (hereinafter called the surety), was impleaded as an additional defendant by the association.
The United States Rural Electrification Administration (hereinafter called REA) provided funds for the electric system, and its administrator had the right to supervise the performance of the contract and to inspect all materials furnished thereunder. He was required to approve invoices for materials before payment therefor by the association.
Plaintiff and the surety demurred to the answers and counterclaims of the association. The demurrers were sustained, and the association was granted leave to amend its answers and counterclaims subsequent to the determination of this appeal.
The complaint in substance alleged that between March 12, 1941, and December 5, 1941, plaintiff sold and delivered to the association under the terms of a written contract dated February 25, 1941, which was made a part of the complaint, certain poles described in the complaint, which were accepted by the association, removed from the agreed delivery point, and thereafter incorporated into its electric system, and upon which there was due and owing a balance of $2,342.90, plus interest.
The answers and counterclaims of the association in substance alleged the following defenses and counterclaims to plaintiff's action:
First, that plaintiff, knowing the purpose for which said poles were intended and the dimensions and specifications called for by the terms of the contract in connection therewith, nevertheless failed to deliver poles of the specifications required by said contract, and caused some of the poles which were delivered by him to be marked with brands which incorrectly indicated their length and class; that the association relied upon said brands and warranties, accepted delivery of the poles, and caused such improperly branded poles to be installed in its electric system; that in consequence it will be necessary for the association to replace the defective poles, to its damage in the sum of $19,513.73.
Second, that plaintiff caused certain brands to be placed on said poles, well knowing such brands to be false and fraudulent, with the intention of deceiving and inducing the association to accept delivery of said poles and to use them in its electric distribution system; that it relied upon such brands and believed them to be correct, and in consequence accepted delivery of said poles and incorporated them into its electric system, to its damage as alleged in the first defense.
Third, that plaintiff employed a pole inspector to examine said poles for compliance with dimensions and specifications set forth in the contract and directed said inspector to pass and approve poles which said inspector and plaintiff knew, or ought to have known, did not conform in length and class to the length and class indicated by the brands placed thereon; that plaintiff intended and knew that the association would rely upon said inspection and would not make an independent inspection of said poles prior to their incorporation into the association's electric system; that the latter did rely upon said inspection, believing it to have been honestly and competently performed, whereas it was not, and that in consequence the association suffered damages as alleged in its first answer.
In connection with these defenses and counterclaims, the association in substance alleged that plaintiff, as principal, and the impleaded defendant, as surety, on March 13, 1941, had duly executed and delivered to the association a bond, which was made a part of said answers and counterclaims, conditioned that the association would be held harmless from costs and damages by reason of any failure on plaintiff's part fully to perform said contract; that said surety had been notified of the default of plaintiff and that demand had been made upon it for the sum of $17,399.60, the face amount of its bond, which sum the surety had failed and refused to pay.
The material portions of the contract are as follows:
* * * * *
The material portions of the bond are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial