Hugh Steele v. City of Duluth
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $3,071.25 for work and labor in repairing certain streets in defendant' city. The answer alleged that the work was done pursuant to the terms of a contract between the parties and that plaintiff had been paid in full. The case was tried before Ensign, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $437.50. Plaintiff’s motion for additional findings was granted.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $3,071.25 for work and labor in repairing certain streets in defendant' city. The answer alleged that the work was done pursuant to the terms of a contract between the parties and that plaintiff had been paid in full. The case was tried before Ensign, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $437.50. Plaintiff’s motion for additional findings was granted. An amended judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for $6,555. Defendant’s motion to set aside the amended findings was denied. From the amended…
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
In 1905 and 1906 plaintiff laid a tar macadam pavement on a street of Duluth under a written contract. By the terms of the contract the work was to be done according to specifications under the supervision of the city engineer and subject to his approval as to workmanship and material. Under heading “Guaranty” appeared several distinct paragraphs as follows:
“The contractor hereby agrees to guarantee the pavement constructed under these specifications for a term of five years from the date of the completion of the work under the contract and its acceptance by the'city, and shall keep the same…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Wheeler v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. City of St. PaulCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- State v. Inhabitants of TrentonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1897
- Reeves v. SawyerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
3Cited by1 opinion
- Meyers v. Barrett & Zimmerman, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936