The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1891-12-25
AT THE COURT HOUSE.
The Case of L. D. SayIor & Son V
The City of Mankato.

Friday was the second day Of thecase
Of L D. Saylor 4 Son VS.. City Of Man
kato, now being tried before Judge
III. ]. Severance and twelve jurors.
The greater part Of Thursday was
taken up with legal questions and not
until q late hour in the day did the
first witness L. D. Saylorl get into
the witness chair to testify. There
had been but little progress made up
TO the hour of adjournment last night.
b. D. Smith, Esq. and Thos. Hughes
are the counsel for the plaintiff and
W. Z. Young for TIE defendant.
The complaint alleges that on the
18th day OF June, 1889, the plaintiffs
entered into an agreement with the
city Of ManKato to grade and improve
= Bread street, from Elm street to the
north line of Dukes addition and to
put in certain sewer pipe, according
70 the plans, profles and specifca-
tions. II further alleges that the
city OF Mankato agreed to pay the
plaintiff the sum of Twenty-nine
hundred and eighty-seven (s2,9a7.o0)
dollars IN case the plaintiffs should
perform and complete said work in
al respects according to the terms OF
the contract. The plaintiff further
alleges that the work has been duly
performed, but that the city had re-
fused and neglected to pay the ball
ance Of $3.50.
The second cause OF action alleges
that between June 18th and Dec. 18th,
1859, that by. special instance and re-
quest Of the defendant they perform
ed work and labor and furn ished ma
teriaIs over and above and outside of,
aud rot included in said contract, in
cutting, digging and excavating ten
thousand 10,000) cubic yards of earth
on, from and out OF Broad street be-
tween Elm street and the north line
CT Dukes addition, and in hauling.
placing and filing in on the street
above men toned, 10000 additional
yards OF earth, all in the grading and
improving Of said street, all of which
vas then well and reasonably worth
the full sum Of 81. 9s1, which has not
been paid, nor any part thereof.
The plaintiffs demand Judgment
against the city for the sum of s819.50
with interest thereon at the rate Of
per cent, per annum from the first day
CT November, 1889, and for the further
sum Of s., 9s7, with interest from and
since the 18th day OF December, 1880,
and for costs and disbursements Of
the action The complaint is dated
July Ist, 1891.
The defendent in the answer adj
uIts entering into contract with the
plaintiff and further admits that as
the work progressed under the con-
tract. but denies that plaintiff fulfill
ed said contract and completed the
work according to the terms thereof.
but on the contrary alleges that plain
TIT neglected and refused to finish
the work according to terms Of con-
tract, leaving. suspending and aban-
doning the same before the completion
thereof.
The defendant further alleges that
n accordance with the provisions Of
the charter Of the city Of Mankato
b and through proper officers pro
ceeded 20 re-Iet said work to John
Bowen ard 4. Il Pirath. for the sum
CT s799 The above named firm COM
pleted the work, To the satisfaction Of
the Board Of Public Works on Nov.
30th, 1856, and that the city paid to
them tie sum Of s-99 as agreed upon. I
The defendent denies that be
tween June 10th and Dec. 18th. 1889.
or al any other time at the special in
stance and reqGest OF the defendant,
the plaintiff performed work and Ia
Dor or furnished materials for defend
ant outside OF and not included in the
contract for impr ovements Of the
street heretofore mentioned.
II the concluding paragraph Of the
defendants answer they ask for
judgement ofthe plaintiff fer the sum
OF 3,92Q and disbursements in this
action for damages in not fulfilling
the contract.