Case ID: f_294/html/0898-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRYAN, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BAY COUNTY, FLA., v. NIXON-SMITH CONST. CO. et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    December 19, 1923.)
    No. 4087.
    Highways <&wkey;l 13(4) — Provision of sontract for road work held to make engineer final arbiter.
    A provision of a contract with a county for road construction that the county engineer shopld determine the amount and acceptability of the work, and decide all questions in dispute as to the interpretation of the plans and specifications and fulfillment of the contract, held to make him the final arbiter as to the amount due under the contract.
    In Error to the' District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida; William B. Shepp'ard, Judge.
    Action at law by the Nixon-Smith Construction Company and another- against Bay County, Fla. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    J. M. Sapp, of Panama City, Fla., for plaintiff in error.
    John P. Stokes, of Miami, Fla., for defendants in error.
    Before WAFKFR and BRYAN, Circuit Tudges, and GRUBB, District Judge.
   BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

Bay county, Fla., sues out this writ of error to a judgment against it in favor of the plaintiffs below.

The plaintiffs sued upon a contract with the county commissioners for certain road construction. The contract provides that the' county engineer, who certified that the county was due the plaintiffs the amount of the judgment, “shall determine the amount, quality, fitness, and acceptability of all work to be paid for, and decide all questions or differences of opinion that might arise as to the interpretation of these plans and specifications, or the fulfillment of the terms of this contract.”

It is conceded that no error .was committed, if the contract provides that the engineer’s certificates should be final and conclusive upon the parties. The court submitted to the jury all questions which were raised as to the incompetency and bad faith of the-engineer. The only question before us, therefore, is as to the effect of the above quoted provision-of the contract. That provision, in our opinion, clearly and definitely constitutes the county engineer the final arbiter of the amount due to the plaintiffs under the contract.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <gz=>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NTJMBER in 'all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes