Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-04-17
A SAVING TO THE CITY.
Contractors Must Wait for Their
Money Without Interest
AN IMPORTANT COURT DECISION.
Contest Renewed Over the viii Of the
Late Alex. q. Miller.
CHAFED By THEIR MARRIAGE PETERS

Judge Stowe yesterday handed down
| opinions in the cases of Booth & Finn and
Evan Jones against the City Of Pittsburg,
actions to determine the city's liability 70,
interest on money due the contractors fol
work on streets, sewers, etc. The question
in dispute was whether the contractors
should receive interest from the date Of the
completion of the work, or from the time the
city became liable to pay the amounts due
or have suits brought
In the case of Booth & Finn Judge
Stowe decided against the contractors and
in the other case he decided in favor Of
Jones, because interest had been provided
for in the ordinance. The ruling in the
Booth & Finn case, however, 1t is stated,
will apply to almost. all the rest of the
city's contracts, as the ordinance for the
Thirty-third street sewer, constructed by
Jones, was almost the only one which pro-
vided expressly for the payment Of interest,
on the balance due, from the completion of
the work.
The opinion in the case of Booth & Finn,
which also gives the substance of the one in
the case of Evan Jones, is as follows:
A Distinction Between the Two Cases.
There is a very marked distinction between
this case and that Of Evan Jones VS. The
City. just decided, in which he was allowed
interest on his claim from the completion Of
the work done by him in that case, viz: the
Thirty-thtrd street sewer. There the ordi-
nance, which was the basis of the con.
tract between tho contractor and the
city, provided that "for the purpose
nfx $t,n ho1s 80 rt
to be awarded under the provisions OF this
ordinance, after applying the assessments
upon private property collected within two
years from the completion of the work done
the payment OF said balance with interest"
The plain terms OF the ordinance indicate
that the interest was to be paid not from the
the time the contractor was entitl ed to have
his money, to-wit, the time the work was
done. It cannot be intended to mean inter
pay or be sued, because that would be the
case at all events, and further, because the
ordinance pre-supposes the money Will be
paid whenever the city is bound to pay, and
appropriation 10 made in advance for that
purpose. But here the case il different. Tho
act Of April l6, 1870 makes no direct provision
for the payment of interest to contractors,
but authorizes Councils to provide for the
pense of constructing sewers. the grading
and paving of streets, etc., in whole or in
part, as the work progresses, and authorizes
borrowing Of sums not exceeding 500, 0,0o0
the issuing of bonds therefor, and evidently
the right to contract for payment of inter-
est to the contractor isimplied.
No Contract to Pay Interest.
II the city would borrow money at inter
est it would seem to follow that arrange
ments could be made with contractors to
defer payments on interest, but apart from
this think it clear that, under the general
authority Of the act to provide for payment
of contractors, q right to provide for pay
ment OF interest is implied. Have the
Councils done SO in this case? 1t is said
that the act of 1887 provided for the collec-
tion of interest on assessments and therefore
1t would be implied that it should
swer Is plain. That act is to be considered
as though it had never been passed. The
act of May Is, 1871, provides all assessments
for payment Of grading and paving. ETC., of
streets shall bear interest from the date of
the completion of the work and all interest
is onfv q means provided for the power of
to the city of the assessments and
does not imply that the contractors we're to
receive per cent or any other amount for
interest.
The general rule Is unquestfoned. Inter-
est will not be allowed against q debtor until
time of payment has arrived unless specially
contracted for. We have seen nor heard
nothing in the papers or on the argument
which can properly bo construed to amount
to a contract to pay interest on this claim,
and therefore we must refuse to allow q
without interest.
In the case Of Evan Jones Judgment was
to be entered for the amount of the
claim with interest.