Board of Improvement Water & Light Improvement Districts v. Galbraith
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. The engineer was guilty of no fraud or misconduct ; nor is any shown on the part of the board. By the stipulations in the contract, the board was to have the final decision in all matters of dispute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. The engineer was guilty of no fraud or misconduct ; nor is any shown on the part of the board. By the stipulations in the contract, the board was to have the final decision in all matters of dispute. This provision is valid, binding and enforceable. 112 Ark. 83; 88 Id. 213; 83 Id. 140; Loyd on Buildings, § § 19 and 20 A; 79 Ark. 506. 2. The deductions or decreases and also the extras or increases are fair and reasonable, and having been determined by the engineer and the board their decision is final. 3. The board is…
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, J.,
(after stating the facts). I. Among other provisions in the contract is the following:
‘ ‘ The board shall have the final decision in all matters of dispute involving the character, quality and the amount of work and the-compensation to be paid therefor in eases not directly provided for in this contract or the plans and specifications, or any other question arising under this contract. ’ ’
Appellants contend that under this provision the decision of the board and the engineer as to the amount that should be deducted from the original contract price was final.
The improvement districts…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Boston Store v. SchleuterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- Hatfield Special School District v. KnightSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Board of Commissioners Sewer Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1919