James v. Davidson
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Richlcmd County. The defendant Russell, who is the principal debtor, contracted with Richland county, in April, 1889, to build for it a court house at a stipulated price. The contract provided for monthly estimates and payments as the work progressed, and that the county should retain twenty per cent, of such estimates as security for the ultimate performance of the contract by Russell.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Richlcmd County. The defendant Russell, who is the principal debtor, contracted with Richland county, in April, 1889, to build for it a court house at a stipulated price. The contract provided for monthly estimates and payments as the work progressed, and that the county should retain twenty per cent, of such estimates as security for the ultimate performance of the contract by Russell. November 1, 1889, the county held as such reserve fund $4,317, but subject to deductions of about $900 on account of certain changes in the plans of the building. Between…
1Opinion of the Court
LyoN, Ci J.
This is a controversy between plaintiff and the appellants, each of whom is a creditor and subcontractor of the defendant Russell, for money alleged to be due Russell from the county of Richland. The money claimed is the unexpended balance of the reserve fund remaining after the county shall have paid out of such fund the cost of completing the building, incurred after Russell threw up his *324contract to erect the same. The appellants intervened in the action for the purpose of contesting the right of plaintiff to any portion of such money. This practice is authorized in Hawes v.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Klaus v. City of Greek BayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Hawes v. ClementWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by3 opinions
- Barth v. GrafWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Rickman v. RickmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Loomans Lumber Co. v. MielkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915