King Iron Bridge & Manuf'g Co. v. City of St. Louis
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri
At Law. In this case it appears from the record that on November 18, 1887, plaintiff contracted with the city of St. Louis “to furnish and erect the iron and steel work’ of the superstructure of the main spans of the Grand Avenue bridge, on the present stone piers, and to connect the same with the iron-work of the anchorage,” in conformity with certain plans and specifications, and for the sum of $144,000. The contract contained a provision that the work embraced therein…
Read the full summary
At Law. In this case it appears from the record that on November 18, 1887, plaintiff contracted with the city of St. Louis “to furnish and erect the iron and steel work’ of the superstructure of the main spans of the Grand Avenue bridge, on the present stone piers, and to connect the same with the iron-work of the anchorage,” in conformity with certain plans and specifications, and for the sum of $144,000. The contract contained a provision that the work embraced therein should be begun by the plaintiff “within one week after written notice so to do had been given to the plaintiff by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Tiiay'er, J.,
(after stating the fads as above.') First. The first question to bo determined is whether the provision of the contract authorizing deductions from the contract price in case the work was not completed within one week and ten months after notice to begin the work had boon given, was an operative provision when the street commissioner made his final estimate, or had become eliminated from the contract by the default of the city. There (¡an he no doubt that the duty rested on the city to construct and prepare the bridge piers for the erection thereon of the superstructure. The…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stewart Howell v. . KeteltasNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Weeks v. . LittleNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Jones v. C. & O. R. R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1878
- Dumke v. PuhlmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by18 opinions
- State Highway Department v. MacDougald Construction Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Gogo v. Los Angeles County Flood Control DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Gillioz v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
- Wunderlich v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1950
- Bates & Rogers Const. Co. v. Board of Com'rsDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1920
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.