Moore v. Kerr (1884) · DecisionDepot

Moore v. Kerr

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Aug 26, 1884 No. No. 9,143Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that because the contract required the bridge construction to be completed to the satisfaction of the appointed superintendent, and the work was found to be so completed without fraud or mistake, the superintendent's judgment is conclusive and the defendants are liable for the remaining balance.

Issues

Whether the superintendent's satisfaction with the construction work is conclusive upon the parties.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the balance due under the contract upon the completion and delivery of the bridge.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It does not appear that there was any fraud or mistake on the part of Perrott. His judgment is therefore conclusive, and the defendants are not allowed to go behind it.”

“The plaintiffs have a right to recover the balance under the contract, viz., fifteen hundred dollars, with interest from the 27th day of November, 1880”

Synopsis

Contract—Agent—Acceptance.—Where the parties to a building contract agree upon an agent who is authorized by the agreement to accept or reject the work when completed, his acceptance is binding and conclusive, in the absence of fraud or mistake.

Thornton, J. The contract under which the plaintiff’s claim was found by the court is as follows: —

“This agreement made and entered into this 26th day of July, A. D. 1880, by and between The California Bridge Company of Oakland, Cal., party of the first part, and Gardner Day, M, E. Bryant, J. C. Kerr, D. J. Locke, George Ringer, Isaac Rogers, G. G. Holman, J. Cotton, and George S. Locke, all of San Joaquin County, Cal., parties of the second part, witnesseth: That the said bridge company hereby agrees to furnish all materials for, and construct a bridge over the Mokelumne River, at the town of Lockeford, in said San Joaquin County, in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor adopted by the board of supervisors of said county, and [520]on file with the county clerk of said county, said bridge to be built under the direction and to the satisfaction of the superintendent appointed by said board, in good and workmanlike manner, and to be completed within four months from date. In consideration of which the said parties hereby agree to pay, or cause to be paid/ to the said first party, the just and full sum of forty-five hundred ($4,500) dollars, gold coin, or equivalent (in addition to the fifteen hundred dollars which is to be paid said company by said county towards the construction of said bridge), said sum to be paid as follows, viz.: When all the materials are on the ground and all the piles are driven, then the sum of three thousand ($3,000) dollars shall be paid, and the balance shall be paid upon the completion and delivery of said bridge to said San Joaquin County. It is hereby understood and agreed that said bridge is to be built for a free bridge for San Joaquin County, and is to be delivered to said county when completed. It is hereby further agreed that said bridge shall consist of one span of one hundred and thirty feet on the main channel, and six hundred and twenty feet of trestle-work. In witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set their hand and seal, the day and date first above written.

[seal.] “The California Bridge Co.,

“By Alfred W. Burrell, President.

[seal.] “ J. C. Kerr,

[seal.] “D. J. Locke,

[seal.] “Geo. Ringer,

[seal.] “Isaac Rogers,

[seal.] “ G. C. Holman,

Moore v. Kerr

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief