The Republican journal., 1904-12-08
The frankfort Bridge Case

DECISION BY THE LAW COURT.
John H. Riley VS.. Town Of Frankfort.
Rescript Emery, J.
The following statement of facts is
undisputed. A highway wooden bridge
across Marsh stream in Frankfort was
carried away by freshet early in 1902.
The supporting pier in the middle of
the stream was also carried away. Only
| the old stone abutments were left and
| these were somewhat damaged. Instead
of undertaking. to rebuild the old abut-
ments, pier and bridge on their former
lines, the town voted to build an iron
bridge and through its committee chosen
for that purpose prepared drawings and
specifications for al iron bridge to be
supported upon two new stone abut-
ments and one stone pier midway be-
tween them. In these drawings and
specifications were shown the length,
width and pattern of the iron structure,
and also in detail the relative positions,
the dimensions, material, shape, style
and mode of construction of the pier
and each abutment, and also the char
acter of the foundations.
The plaintiff inspected these drawings
! anu SpcCluCdUlOuS anu dAoO Vic loCOilCy
where the bridge was to be built in the
side of the stream, and March II, 1902,
he contracted in writing with the town
to furnish all the labor and materials
for and with them construct the pier
and abutments in accordance with the
specifications and drawings ''to the en-
tire and complete satisfaction of the
bridge committee" in sixty days after
beginning the work and for the sum of
$4,000
He began the work under this con-
tract the last of March, 1902, but did
not finish it until the following Sep
TENDER, though the iron superstructure
was at hand ready to be set up as early
as June. The plaintiff has already been
paid S2277, d little more than the full
contract price He now in this action
seeks to recover a large sum additional
! Waving all question as to the sutiici-
ency of his declaration upon the forego-
/ ing facts, we address ourselves at once
| to consideration of his claims under
any appropriate declaration.
His principal claim is that the commit
tee required him to so locate and align
the abutments and pier as to entail
| greater expense in preparing the founda-
! filling in the abutments than would have
been necessary in the location and align
ment desire by him. One large item
| in this claim is that he proposed to so
| locate and align that he could utilize the
old retaining walls as they stood and
could be relieved from much additional
! filling. whereas the location and align
ment set for him necessitated the fresh
! construction OF one or more retaining
walls and increased filling. There was
10 express provision in the contract as
to which party should fix the precise To-
cation AND alignment, but inasmuch as
| the plaintiff stipulated to perform the
whole work ito the entire and complete
| satisfaction of the Bridge Committee"
and reserved nothing as to precise loca-
ton and alignment we think he stipulat-
ed III effect to construct the abutmentS
and pier in such location in the line of
the highway as the Bridge Committee
should fix. assuming them to act rea-
sonably and in good faith. 1t does not
appear that they acted unreasonably.
| The difference was only few feet. 1t
is not shown that the bridge is out of
lire with the highway or that there is
any twist in it, nor is it shown that
there was any variation from the draw
ings and specifications. The structure
as built corresponds with those depicted
On tue other hand, it does appear, we
think, that the location and alignment
proposed by the plaintiff were imprae-
ticable. The drawings and specifications
could not have been wrought out on
| that basis.
The plaintiff urges, however that in
making the contract he expected to
construct the abutments and pier on
the exact location of the former ones,
and to adopt what was left of the old
abutments as they stood and simply
build on them, and that he made the
contract with this understanding. Tn
fortunately, the contract, drawings and
specifications give no hint of this.
They rather indicate new material and
new structures There is in them no
reference to old structures or old ma
terlals. The committee deny any such
understanding except as to use of Old
material, and against their denial the
alleged understanding cannot be read
into the written contract. As to loca-
ton, as already stated, where no stipu-
lation is made, it is for the owner with
in reasonable limits to fix the precise
location of the structure to be built for
him and which he is to pay for espec-
tally when he has stipulated that the |
work shall be done to his centre and
complete satisfaction" Under this |
rule we think the plaintiff was bound
by his contract to construct as directed |
by the committee within the terms of |
the contract. If the expense was more
than he expected, it is the chance he
took in making the contract, and he |
cannot be relieved because it went |
against him. /
The plaintiff makes some further and |
minor claims such as for extra work in |
building one abutment caused by
change Of direction ON the part of the |
committee, as to extra work on the pier,
etc. These claims are disputed and the
evidence as to them is contradictory.
On the other hand are counter claims
for work and material omitted, such as
not raising the roadway, on the easterly
so much as required, not filling the road
way sufficiently on the westerly side,
not putting i'll sufficient bowels in the
pier, insuf1iciency of foundation of
vi rlN ;,,.