Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-11-20
Claims the Court Has No Jurisdiction
in the Contract Case.
REISMEYER'S CHARGE ANSWERED.
The City Wants Damage Because the Job
Was Delayed.
OUGHT TO APPEAL TO THE ARCHITECT

Iourteentn WarO ponce S1atlOn. MI helS-
meyer, it will be remembered, claimed that
Chief Brown and Police Superintendent
Weir, for political reasons, refused to
pay for a lot of extras in the construction of
the building, although the extras had been
put in according to their instructions and
with an understanding that they were to be
specially paid for. In their bill of COM
plant McGhee & Reismeyer detailed the
extras and their respective cost.
In his affidavit of defense Chief Brown
answers to each of these claims, and, while
utterly denying the cify's liability for
them, pleads that the court has no jurisdic-
tion in the case as it stands at present. In
his deposition the Chief says:
Wants the Architect to Decide.
That he is Chief of the Department. of Pub
lie Safety on behalf of the city of Pittsburg,
ana as such admits the execution on behalf
OF the city of the contract upon which this
suit was brought. He AYERS and says the
city has just full and legal defense to the
whole of the claim of the plaintiffs, except
ing as hereafter explained and qualified.
That under the contract upon which
things provided that in all matters of dis
pute relating to the work and material the
same shall either be passed upon by the
architect in charge thereof or by board of
arbitrators to be chosen in 4 manner speci-
fed. That differences and disputes had
arisen between the contractors and the city
of Pittsburg in relation to manv Of the
claims now made part of the affidavit of
Claim, and to the plans and specifications
and which he expects to show at the trial.
That the city was ready and willing at any
time to proceed to a submission of all mat
ters in dispute to the architect who had au-
be chosen as the contract designated. But
no demand was ever made upon him by the
plaintiffs before the bringing of this suit to
have the matter submitted to the architect
or to any board of farbitrators.
He respectfully su bmits. on Denalf OF the
city, that this suit has been premnturely
brought and the court has not, nor can it
take, Jurisdiction of this matter until the
questions in dispute shall have been referred
to and passed upon by the architect or arbi-
traitors, US provided for in the contract, no
having been shown in plaintiffs statement
and affidavit.
Knew What Was to Be Used.
Thfrd-The city admits the making and
the execution of the contract, and says that
all of the material embraced in the building
was such as contemplated by contract, plans
and specifications, or by instruction from
the architect who was under that contract,
clothed with full power and authority to
settle and determine finally all questions re-
lating to the workmanship and material
employed. The plaintiffs sub-let the work
for said contract fully understa rding and
knowing at the time the character Of the
material to be employed in the construc-
tion OF the building. The contract
was deliberately and knowingly assumed
character of.the material and the workman
ship required and demanded for the build
ing, the Chief of the Department of Public
Safety acting as a public officer. and the
known COncprnod
to be permanent structure to be used for
special purposes, having in view its public
roundings of the neighborhood. With this
knowledge the plaintiffs sub-let the contract
to competent sub contractors, who fully
completed the building with the material
required and provided for by, the contract.
plans or specifications, or, in the absence of
any such full specification therein. to be de-
termined by the architect. The sub-contnc-
tors were not only satisfied Herewith, but
have been almost entirely paid by the city
by orders, from time to time given by the
architect TO the sub-contractors. with the
tiffs.
Brown Denies ANY Indebtedness.
The city denies that it is indebted to the |
plaintiffs in any sum whatever for "extra
stone, and work on thickness of bed of stone
in 'front.'" amounting to .425 so, as set forth
specifically in the plaintiffs claim. 1t de-
nies that the city is indebted to plaintiffs in
any sum whatever for "block stone and |
extra cost Of work over ordinary building
stone," amounting to $3.50, as set forth in
their claim, and claims that the material for |
which this claim is made, and all work en- |
braced therein, were expressly agreed upon,
paid for and mentioned either in the writ |
ten contract, plans and specifications or by |
the architect, who had full authority in the |
the plaintiffs before 81 worth Of |
work has ever been done, either by them or |
nnfO 1,r,do
material for which they claim the allowance |
of the two items mentioned was the material |
upon which the sub-contractors made their |
bid, and is the material they furnished and |
have been almost entirely paid for upon the |
orders before recited.
The Chief states that he is informed and |
outside sum in which the city of PittSburg is |
indebted for, by reason of any extra work |
and material connected with the building, is |
covered by the sum of about $500, which he |
believes the architect supervising all this |
work was willing to allow, more for the pur- |
pose of making a fair settlement of |
All matters in dispute than because |
outside of the $500 each, and every claim en-. |
tered into and made part of the bill OF items |
as set out i'll McGhee Reismeyeis' claim. |
debted to the plaintiffs "for cutting passages |
in cellar wall, lintels. etc, amounting to Sl5 |
extra stone work at stable wall, $40, tagging |
floor of light shaft, 800, and seven squares !
tile for dormer windows, $245.
Says the Charges Are Excessive.
The city is not disposed to dispute the re- |
naming items in the claim, except as herein |
expressly denied, nor any item which can be |
shown to have been ordered by the architect |
in writing, as provided in the contract, but |
AYERS that the charges therefor are exces. |
sive unjust and unreasonable.
He claims further, that instead of the CITY
being indebted to the plaintiffs in any sum
they are indebted to the city be-
cause under the contract it is, among other
things, provided:
First-The contractor shall proceed with
the work il prompt and diligent manner.
and shall finish the work according to the
drawings and specifications on or before
December 1880, provided that possession of
bef ore May l9, 1890 And in default thereon
the contractor shall pay $40 for every dav
thereafter that the work shall remain un-
ments of this section were fully complied
with on the part of the city ana the archi-
tect, and that all the obligations resting
upon the city were fully disc harged but NOT. |
this the plaintiffs did not com
plete the work at the time named. nor
within the period OF any extension granted
them but on the contrary, refused to com
plete the work. On October G. 1891 the citv
was compelled by public necessity to take
possession of the building and have finished
and completed whatever remained to be
lS0 days which, at $40 a day liquidated dam.
ages, would make 81, $40 for which the MA ir.
tiffs are responsible to thecIty, and f0f which
amount the city demandsa certificate at the
were other expenditures made necessarv
by reason of the total failure of the nlnin.
lifts to complete the building within the
time and according to the plans and sneo;
ications the city expects to show upon tbe
trial of the cases. In addition to the certi6
cate of 81 $50, the city demands certificate