(DOWNLOAD) "Charles I. Hosmer v. Commonwealth" by Supreme Court of Minnesota ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Charles I. Hosmer v. Commonwealth
- Author : Supreme Court of Minnesota
- Release Date : January 07, 1939
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 71 KB
Description
RONAN, Justice. This is a petition against the Commonwealth under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 258, to recover a balance due under a written contract, executed by the petitioner with the Commonwealth, for the construction of an extension to a re-enforced concrete beam bridge in the towns of Bourne and Wareham; and also to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by the petitioner on account of delays in the performance of the contract, due to the action of the respondent. The petition sets forth that the petitioner was delayed in the commencement of the work by the indecision of the department of public works and the negligent failure of the said department to approve a subcontract for certain materials and to furnish proper plans for the new bridge. It is further alleged that, after the work was begun, its progress was interrupted by the neglect of the department seasonably to give the petitioner a schedule for structural steel fabrication; by the request of the department that the prosecution of the work should not interfere with the use of a public highway; by substituting the use of tie rods instead of cables; by changing the size of the lighting conduit and junction boxes; by the unreasonable delay in giving orders for extra work and by the unreasonable failure of the department to have the telephone cables removed. The Commonwealth admitted the balance due on the contract as alleged in the second paragraph of the petition, and filed an offer of judgment as permitted by G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 231, 74, and c. 258, 2, in the amount claimed, with interest. To the remaining paragraphs of the petition the respondent filed a paper purporting to be a plea, which alleged that all of the claims set forth in these paragraphs were not recoverable against the Commonwealth. In the Superior Court, this pleading was apparently treated as a plea in equity. The parties agreed that the respondent had paid for all extra work. The only evidence introduced at the hearing in the Superior Court was upon the truth of the allegations contained in this pleading. It was adJudged sufficient and sustained. The Judge found and ruled: As to the truth of the plea in fact it appears that the contract forming the basis of the action bars claims for damages founded upon delay in the starting of the work to be performed under the contract, or any suspension thereof. As the matters of complaint that are set forth in the petition were based upon a claim for special damages in consequence of delay in the start of the work and interruption in the progress thereof after the start, which I rule would come within the term suspension as used in the contract, the plea is found to be true in fact, and I therefore sustain the plea, except as to paragraph 2 thereof [of the petition], with regard to which the respondent filed an offer of judgment for the amount declared upon therein. The case is here upon a report upon the single question as to whether the provisions of the contract and standard specifications are a defense to the claims for delay alleged in the petition.