Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-11-30

ried away. Only the old stone abut-
mentS We're left and these were some
what damaged. Instead of undertake
ing to rebuild the old abutments, 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 an iron bridge to be
supported upon two new stone abut-
ments and one stone pier midway be-
w cen them. In these drawings and
specifications we've shown the length,
width and pattern of the iron struc-
ture, 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 character of the foundations.
The plaintiii inspected these draw
ingS and specifications and also the
locality where the bridge was to be
built in the general line of the highway
on either 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 III accordance
with the specifications and drawings
to the entire and complete satlsfac-
ton of the bridge committee" in sixty
days after beginning the work and for
the sum OF 5000.
He began the work under this con-
tract the last of March. 1902. but did
not furnish it until the following
September. though the iron super
structure WAS at hand ready to be set
.,1 n
has already been paid SIT, d little
more than the full contract price. He
now in this action seeks to recover
large sum additional. Waving all
question as to the sufficiency of his
declaration upon the foregoing facts,
we address ourselves at once to Il con-
sideratirn Of his claims under any APP
propriate declaration.
His principal claim is that the COM
mittee required him to so locate and
align the abutments and pier as to
entail greater expense i'll preparing
the founda lions and i'll building re-
tanning walls and filling in the abut-
ments than would have been necessary
in the location and alignment desired
by him. one large item in this claim
is that be proposed to so locate and
align that he could utilize the old re-
tanning walls as they stood and could
be relieved from much additional fill
ing, whereas the location and align
ment set for him neccssitated the
fresh construction of one or more re-
tanning walls and increased filling.
There was no express provision in the
contract as to which party should fix
II nj
inasmuch as the plaintiff stipulated to
perform the whole work ito the entire
and complete satisfaction of the
Bridge Committee" and reserved moth
ing as to precise location and align
ment We think he stipulated in 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 or
line with the highway or that there is
any twist in it, nor is it shown that
there was any variation from the
drawings and specifications. The
structure as built corresponds with
those depicted. On the other hand it
does appear we think that the location
and alignment proposed by the
plaintiff We're impracticable. 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. I'm
| 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
materials. 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
| location. IL already stated. where no
| stipulation is made, it is for the owner
| within reasonable limits to fix the pre-
| else location Of the structure to be
built for him and which he is to pay
for, especially when he has stipulated
that the work shall he done to his EN-
tire and complete satisfaction" I'm
der 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 ne took in making the con-
tract. and he cannot be relieved be-
cause it went against him.
The plaintiff makes some further and
minor claims such as for extra work
in building one abutment caused by a
| 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 rails
ing the roadway. OIL the easterly
so much as required, not filling the
roadway sufficiently on the westerly
side. not putting in sufficient bowels in
the pier, insufficiency of foundation of
westerly abutrnent requiring an ex-