The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1881-06-04
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
reported Weekly by Jenkins a. >hot-
well. Attorneys-at-i.aw.
BRIDGES a. HILL,

BRIDGES a. HILL,
BOARD SUPERVISORS CLAY COUNTY.
Appeal from the Circuit Court Of Clay
county, Hon. James NJ. Arnold Judge.
Plaintiffs contracted with the Board OF
Supervisors of Clay County to build GER
tain bridges according to plans and specifi-
cations Oh file. They read but misundcr-
stood the specifications MS to- the character
Of the abutments required to be put to the
bridges which they had contracted to build
and had undertook the contract at less
sum than they otherwise would. They
have been paid the full sum for which they
contracted, and now bring this suit to re-
cover the difference between the contract
price and the sum which il is manifest they
would have bid if they had properly I'M
understood the specifications. They base
their demand upon the fact that they were
led into the matter in part by some men,
beers OF the Board, who shared il with them,
who were well aware Of the calcu lation
upon which they fixed the amount Of their
bid, and who in open session misinformed
them as to the requirements of the specih-
cations with regard to the abutments. To
the declaration of the plaintiffs setting
forth these facts, demurrer was interpos-
ed and sustained, and from this the plain
tiils prosecute this appeal. .#
L. Brame, and Barry 81 Beckett for appel
iants.
F.s. White for appellee.
CHALMERS, c. j.
He'd
1. III THIS We're suit between private
persons it could not be sustained without
u precedent reformation of the contract by
court of chancery so rs to make IL con
form to the mutual understanding of the
parties. II is only shown or attempted TO
be shown, that two members OF the Board, |
less than majority. shared in their mis- |
take, II there was one and reformation
could not therefore be enforced against the |
Board or those whom il represented, If ii |
was committee Of u private association |
or corporation except upon the idea that u
Of the members by their silence
when they ought to have spoken, estopped |
not only themselves but also the corpora
ten TO insist upon the terms of the con-
tract Ms written. Certainly no such prin-
ciple can be invoked against the county.
:. Doafuh VI SupcTNihoTs Dluu cOunllcs |
only when acting within the range of their
authority and In the mode and manner
pointed out by the statutes. Their con-
tracts are evidenced by the entries on their
and can no more be varied by
proof that the members failed to speak,
though they knew that those with whom
they were dealing misunderstood the pur-
port of what they were doing, than they
can be created and established by silence
alone.
1t takes an affirmative act of the Board
within the scode Of its authority, evidenc-
ed by an entry on its minutes to bind the
county by contract and when thus made
the contract is not TO be varied any more
than created, by the mere silence of por-
ton OF the Board and the mistaken asser-
ton of others.
1t was plaintiffs folly to rely upon their
own recollection or that of others as to the
Terms of the specifications which were on
hle accessible to all and according to
which they obligated themselves to do the
work. This case in another shape was
heretofore before us and Is reported in 81
Miss. 252.
Judgement affirmed.
tTo BE REPORTED.l