Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-01-16

plaintiff appeared and filed bill IN
which the items Of his claim were fully
and clearly set out. Thcreupon, II the
defendants desired time for the prepara-
ton of their defence, an application TO
the Circuit Court for q postponement OF
the trial ought to have been made. Ana
as no such application was there made,
the objection now raised here cannot
avail. =.
There can be no reasonable doubt
that upon the acceptance of the PLAIN
tif's bonds and the spreading upon
the minutes of the Board the articles
Of agreement between the parties
that contract was consummated,
for the breach of which the plaintiff was
entitled to recover damages. The sta
tute required bond in certain penalty,
with sureties, to be taken from the con-
tractor but did not require that con-
tract between the parties should be re-
duced to writing and signed. The terms
of the contract had been agreed upon
when the articles were signed by the
plaintiff. and there was nothing further
for him to do but to proceed with the
prosecution OF the work he had under
taken. The testimony shows that the
first bond was probably sufficient Sc
curity ~; but il there was any doubt Of
its sufficiency, the second bond, which
was afterwards furnished, and which
was formally approved by the Board,
furnished a security which ought to
have been sufficient to remove the doubt.
At all events, there is no testimony
whatever in the record to the contrary.
And in respect to the last Tor third
bond, the proof is overwhelming that
the signers were men Of means far more
than sufficient to easily discharge the
amount of the penalty in which the bond
was executed. The objection which has
been urged here by the Attorney-Gene-
raj as to the validity of the second
and third bonds because neither
was in the penalty of 100000, and the
last was not executed by the contractor,
is not well founded. The object of the
statute under which the parties were
proceeding was to require, as its terms
import, bond in penalty Of s2O, 900,
with security, to be taken, but there is
no requirement that the bond shall be
executed by the contractor himself.
The interests Of the State are protected
if the security is sufficient, whether the
bond is executed by the contractor or
not and therefore the language Of the
act is, that the bond shall be taken from
the contractor, which does not imply
that il shall be signed by the contrac-
tor. In the present case the first bond
was in the penalty Of 10000, as re-
quired by the statute, and the second
and third were intended simply to
strengthen the security Of that bond.
And that they were valid obligations
for that purpose there can be no
doubt.
The requirements Of the statute m
respect TO taking bond were, therefore.
c;;'g cc".plirt with snd the errri
properly distracted the jury as follows
"Ifthe jury believe that after the action
Of the Board Of the asylum Of October
20 and October 81 1880 IN acccptiur
the bonds Of the plaintiff and in pre-
scribing the form of the contract, the
plaintiff was furnished with written
contract in such form. and that he exc
cuted it by his own signature and de-
livery TO the president Of the Board, then
it became the duty Of the president to
execute il on behalf Of the Board, and
his failure to DO 80 could not deprive
the plaintiff Of any rights under the
contract. and if thereafter, without any
fault on the part Of the plaintiff, the
defendants prohibited or prevented him
from fulfilling the contract, they should
find for the plaintiff
Nor did the Court err in instructing
the jury that if they believed from the
evidence that the plaintiff was entitled
TO recover. they should allow a reason
able sum for work and labor done, mo.
ney expended in the performance of The
contract, and materials furnished, and.
in addition, an equivalent sum for the
profits which he would have realized
from the performance Of the contract, il
he had been permitted to execute IT.
This was entirely right. The subject
has been recently considered by this
Court in the case Of the Commissioner
of the Sinking Fund rs. The Kendall
Bank-Note Company, and upon a re-
view Of the authorities by Judge Lacy,
who delivered the opinion, the law was
declared to be as stated TO the jury by
the Circuit Court.
BY these instructions the principles
Of law applicable to the case were fully
and correctly expounded to the jury,
and, upon the evidence in the case, We
are Of opinion that the verdict is right
and ought not to be disturbed.
What has been said sufficiently dis.
poses of the various assignments OF
error in the petition, and requires ar
aflirmauce of the judgment of the Cir.
cuit (gurt