Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-01-21
The Decls1On.

A Board of mmissiouers, one from each
OF i've counties, having been incorporated by
Stale statute 10 construct and maintain leyees.
with authority to make contracts for the do.
ing OF the work, and having made such
contract, and been sued 10 equity thereon, in
the district in which the domicil OF the Board
was established BY its act of incorporation,
BY persons residing out of the district, sub
sequent statute of the State abolished the
offices of the commissioners, aud constituted
the treasurer and the auditor of accounts of
the State er o6icio the Levee Board, with the
declared purpose 'to substitute the treasurer
Commissioners now in Office" and bill of
review was filed against them by leave of the
Court. Held, that the suit might be pros
ecuted against the new Board, although both
the treasurer and the auditor resided out of
the district; and that an appeal from a final
decree for the plaintiff might be taken BY the
treasurer and auditor, describing themselves
by their individual names, ard as such Off
cere, and as en- o6icio the Lsvee Board.
A Board OF Commissioners, authorized by
statute 10 make contracts for the building OF
ievees, and to borrow money, issue bonds, and
sell and negotiate them in any market, but
not at greater rate Of discount than ten per
cent, may make contract for the work at
certain prices by the cubic y ard, pay able in
such bonds; and may afterwa ard amend that
contract by inserting sat the rate Of ninety
cents on the dollar" and issue bonds 10 the
contractors accordingly, upon being satisfied
that such was the agreement actually made
between the parties; although the work is
otually done by sub-coutractors for lower
prices in cash.
A Board of Levee Commissioners made. a
settlement with contractors employed 10 do
the work on certain levees, by which it paid
Them a certain sum and took q receipt In full
for all demands. The parties afterward ex-
ecuted an agreement under seal, reciting the
settlement and receipt in full of all demands,
a complaint of the contractors that injustice
had been done tn EN- in that settlement, and
the desire OF the Board to do full justice;
and stipulatiDg that two eng ineers, one desig-
mated by each party, should measure the
work done, and render to the parties an esti-
mate OF the amount due to the contractors
for such work according to the original con-
tract; that il this should differ from the
amount already paid, the difference should
be paid or refunded accordingly; and that
these two engineers and third, to be agreed
on BY them, should be arbitrators for the adj
justment of all questions of difference; th at,
10 the adjustment OF questions pertaining to
the measurement, The contrac should have
the privilege of introducing all proper evil
dence, and the Board of r. butting that evil
dencs; and that, before proceeding with the
measurement, the contractors should give
written notice to the Board of the points to
be proved and the character of the evidence
to be offered. The contractors thereupon
gave notice of their intention to produce
proof OF several mattere, some of which did
not concern the measurement; to which the
engineer Of the Eoard objected; and the arbi-
tration fell through.
Mr.. Justice Gray delivered the judgment
of the Uoited States Supreme Court, and
held, that the settlement and receipt bound
the contractors as an accord and satisfaction,
and they could not maintain a suit upon the
original contract 10 recover further compen.
sation for the work.