The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1888-03-02
THE COUNTY IS SUED.
Ring & TObin Bring Suit Against the
Commissioners for s6,SSl.62.
The Complaint.

/
The county commissioners have been
made defendants in a suit brought by
Ring 4 Tobin TO recover S6.SSl.02, for
extra work done ON the court house.
The amount is the SAME as mentioned in
the bills considered by the commission
ers at the January meeting. The action
OF the contractors is no surprise to the
commissioners who have been expecting
something of the kind ever since the
January meeting. AS time passed, how
ever, they were beginning TO think that
the contractors had determined TO allow
the matter TO rest until after the March
meeting. The summons was served ON
the auditor Thursday Ameeting of the
commissioners as building committee
will be held March 9TH, two days before
the date TO which an adjournment had
been taken, TO consider the matter.
They will surely fight, as the county at
torney considers that the county has a
good case. The commissioners are will
Ing to allow $500 to 800 rs due the con-
tractors, but consider that this amount
is offset by counter claims.
The following is the complaint served
with the summons:
State of Minnesota, County of Blue
Earth-District Court-6th Judicial Dis
trict.
Martin Ring and James T. Tobin, co.
partners as Ring d Tobin, plaintiffs,
vs..
The Board of County Commissioners
of Blue Earth county, Minnesota, de-
PENDANTS.
Plaintiffs allege, that at all the dates
and times hereinafter mentioned, said
plaintiffs were and now are co-partners,
doing business under the style and firm
name of Ring & Tobin, in and about the
business of contractors and builders.
That on or about the 23d day of 0cto-
Der 1886, said plaintiffs entered into q
contract with said defendant, in and by
the terms of which said contract it was
agreed by and between said parties, that
in consideration of the agreements and
and covenants therein contained, that
said plaintiffs were TO perform all the |
work and labor necessary to be done
and performed, and to furnish all the |
material for the completion of the new
court house now under course of con- |
struction on what is known as the "coun- |
ty block" in the city of Mankato, in said |
Blue Earth county, Minnesota, accord |
ing to plans and specifications of the |
same as furnished by A. l.. Haley, the |
architect thereof, excepting the work !
done and to be done thereon by one |
Thomas Russell, under contract between |
said Russell and said defendant; and ex-
cepting further from said work and la
Dor on said court house the furnishing |
and laying of the hard wood floors and |
inside finish, including window frames, |
sash and glass, vault doors, mantles, |
heating apparatus, plumbing, and stairs;
also excepting other portions of said
building, more particularly enumerated |
In said contract.
That by the terms of said contract, a |
portion of the walls of said
building, such as the belt courses,
and the trimmings and cornices
of said building were to be constructed |
out of what is known as the white |
Flint Ledge stone," found and existing
in the stone quarry owned and operated |
by Frank Fowler, near said city of Man
kato; that while plaintiffs were engaged |
in the construction of said building, said |
defendant, about June 9TH, 1887, request
ed plaintiffs to substitute as the materials
to be used in the construction of SAID
belt courses, trimmings, etc., a kind of
stone commonly known and designated
as the ''cut stone LEDGE" also found and
existing in said stone quarry, in the
place and stead of the "white flint ledge |
stone" mentioned and designated IN
said contract; and in consideration there
of defendants promised to pay to plain
tiffs the difference in the cost and value
of procuring said material from said 'cut
stone ledge" and also to pay plaintiffs
whatever might be the reasonable differ
ence or cost in working said stone, such
as cutting and dressing the same and
getting it ready to be laid in the walls of
said building, over and above the cost of
furnishing and working the "white flint
ledge stone," mentioned in said con-
tract.
That plaintiffs complying with said re-
quest, and relying upon the agreement
Of the defendant as aforesaid did sub
stitute and procure from said "cut stone
LEDGE" stone for the purpose aforesaid |
to the amount of 6, 900 feet, which said |
stone was placed in said building. That
the furnishing, procuring, working and
dressing said 5000 feet of stone substi-
tuted as aforesaid and getting the same |
ready to be laid in the walls of said
building, necessarily cost plaintiffs eighty |
cents per foot more than it would have |
cost plalntlnS 10 nave constructed Salu |
work out of the "white flint ledge" stone |
aforesaid, amounting in all to the sum of
800. That defendant has not paid |
said sum nor any part thereof, though
often requested so to do, and the same
is long past due.
For a second and further cause of &C
ton against said defendants, plaintiffs |
aliege that between the first day of June |
1887, and the first day of November,
1887, plaintiffs at the special instance |
and request of defendants furnished ma
terial for, and performed work, labor |
and services on and about said court |
house building, over and above and not
included in their contract aforesaid, of
the value, and reasonably worth, the |
sum of 81 $751; so; that defendant has not
paid said sum or any part thereof, |
though often requested so to do, that the |
same is due and wholly unpaid.
Wherefore, plaintiffs demand judge |
ment against said defendant for the sum |
of Sc, 381 so and interest thereon from |
date hereof at seven per cent. per an |
mum, together with the costs and dis |
bursements of this action.
E. A. CAMPBELL and ]. E. WATERS,