The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-10-27
SUPREME COURT SAYS THOSE
WORDS MEAN JUST WHAT
THEY SEEM TO.
PLAIN TALK ON CONTRACTS.
NO QUIBBLING IS TO BE TOLER-
ATED IN THEIR INTERFERE
TATION.
BIG VICTORY FOR TAXPAYERS.
1t VIII Make Difference With
Those Whose Property Faces
Paved Streets.

When an asphalt company makes
contract with a city to pave a street
and keep it in repair for ten years at
its own expense, the supreme court
said yesterday, that means that it will
keep the street in repair at its own
expense and not that it will charge
up extra bills to the city because it
did not know when it laid the concrete
that Johnny Jones and Willie Smith
had once built a sand fort where
sewer had since been put in, or that
approximately 1000 generations ago
nomadic glacier had dragged out some
of the gravel that the contractors
thought they might be able to depend
on being under the street.
The suit in which the highest judi
cial tribunal in the state thus read
the riot act to the paving men was
begun by the Warren-Scharf company
against the city of ST. Paul. Although
it is of almost equal interest in Min
apolis, where asphalt streets are be-
ing paved constantly, and where there
seemed to be a possibility of extra
charges being claimed by the contrac-
tors.
The appeal was from an order sus-
tanning a general demurrer to the
plaintiffs reply.
In 1887 the city invited bids for paw
ing with asphalt two avenues, in ac-
cordance with plans and specifications.
The plaintiff being the lowest bidder,
the contract was awarded to it. After
the completion of the work certain
defects were noticed, and the company
was called upon to make the repairs.
Under the contract the plaintiff com-
pany agreed to keep the pavement in
repair for twenty years, the first half
without expense to the city.
1t was alleged in the pleadirgs that
prior to the execution of the contracts
the city made excavations in the CEN
ter of the avenues for sewer purposes.
That the filling up was imperfectly
done, and that when the plaintiff en-
tered into the contract there was no
evidence of the existing imperfection.
In its opinion, the court holds that
the plaintiff took the risk Of preparing
a proper foundation, and guaranteed
the work, as against unknown as well
as known imperfections
The filling was to be done SO as to
prevent settling. Had the work been
done in strict compliance with the
contract the paving would nave re-
manned in place, and the repairs would
have been unnecessary. The plaintiff
assumed the risk which attended its
agreement to prepare the foundations
for these pavements, and must abide
by it,
The court holds as untenable the
plaintiffs point that the work came
within that part of the contracts
which prescribed prices for such work
as might be ordered "to meet unfore-
seen obstacles" These were not such
| imped1ments to the perform ance Of the
contracts as might arise and be dis
covered during the progress of the
work
The syllabus in the case is as fol-
lows:
First-Certain provisions in contracts for
paving streets, entered into between plaintiff
and defendant city, construed.
Second-Held that the reply in an action
brought against the city to rerogsr for ma
teIiais furnished and work perfo med by the
original contractor in repairing pavemeDts
several years after the paving was done, did
not state facts sufficient 10 constitute a de-
Tense to the allegations found in defendants
answer Order affirmed. Collins, ].