Hancock v. McFarland
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Dubuque District Court. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT — CONSIDERATION. By '■written contract, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to erect a main dam in place of an old one washed away; to repair race, head gates and wing planking of embankment, and to erect what is styled a coffer-dam, all for the sum of $1,000; of which $100 was payable when the cofferdam was finished, and the balance as the work progressed and when completed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dubuque District Court. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT — CONSIDERATION. By '■written contract, the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to erect a main dam in place of an old one washed away; to repair race, head gates and wing planking of embankment, and to erect what is styled a coffer-dam, all for the sum of $1,000; of which $100 was payable when the cofferdam was finished, and the balance as the work progressed and when completed. The plaintiff brought this action to recover under the contract and for extra work. He had been paid $500, and obtained a verdict for $500 more. The only…
1Opinion of the Court
Dilloh J.
1. Contract: construction. I. The chief provisions of- the contract relate toe main and permanent dam. Prom the smallness of the price to be paid; from the want of specification, in the contract, as to materials out of which, and the mode in which the coffer-dam was to be constructed; from the limited time — one week —■ allowed for its erection and completion, it is quite obvious that it was an improvised or temporary structure, probably designed to allow the mill to be run, pending the construction of the dam proper. The principal question, on the trial, as to the first coffer-dam,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mayor of New-York v. BaileyNew York Supreme Court · 1845
3Cited by1 opinion
- Francestown Savings Bank v. SilverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904