The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1904-10-29
THE LEVEE BOARD
VS. LEVEE CONTRACTORS
Claims for Damages by Contractors NJ Roach Co., Re-
presented by Attorney II. c. Watson Argued at a
Meeting of the Board Held Last Monday

s A meeting of the levee board wa
y held last Monday afternoon to con
e slider the question of damages elaine,
II by M. ]. Roach & Co., contract
r ors, for delay caused by the Fedora
> court injunction suit last June OF
three-fourths mile of levee at Austria
l. liza, which was part of work they
!. were constructing. The meeting was
called to order by the president oi
t the board and the following members
responded to their names: J. S
Brooks, L. T. Wade, J. S. Walker
g and w. H. Fitzgerald The contract
| ors before the board present were M.
]. Roach, R. L. Leonard, ]. L. Dulan-
ey, Walker Stancel P. McCadden and
c. Torrance all being members of the
contracting firm of M. j. Roach and
Company. The contractors were rep
resented by Attorney H. c. Watson.
After the meeting was called to order
Mr.. Watson stated the cause for
damage and called upon Mr.. McCad-
den to state the facts. Mr.. McCadden
told the board the delay they were
put to by the injunction, the expense
they incurred in moving OUTFITS, and
the loss of whole outfits through de-
lay and their inability now to COM
plete in specified time, and thought
they were not only due an extension
of time, but damages also.
The opinion of the boards attorney
was called for and read by the MEM
bers, which was as follows:
Dr. ]. T. Atterberry, President,
City.
Dear Sir:
In accordance with an order of the |
board of Mississippi Levee Commits |
soners, | beg leave to report upon
the claim of R. Leonard for damages
by reason of the injunction hereto
fore sued out in the suit of Mrs. En-
lily Hurley. Drake, ct al. versus the
Board of Mississippi Levee Com
missioners, ct al. in the U. S. Cir
cult court for the Southern District
OF Mississippi, as follows:
Under section IL of the contract
made by said board with M. ]. Roach
& Co., of which firm Mr.. Leonard
was a member, on the 9th day of April
-oo4, it is provided "No charge shall
be made by the contractor for hin
drance or delays from any cause in
the progress of any portion of the
work in this contract but it may en-
title him to an extension of the time c
allowed for the completion of this '
work to-wit, January I, 1905, suttc-
lent to compensate for the detention,
to be determined by the chief engin-
GER, etc" il
Under this section the board is not t
liable for the payment OF said claim, d
md the contractor is entitled, If he b
S entitled to anything, only to an y
extension of the time allowed in the Il
contract for the completion of said S
work., in accordance with the terms I
hereof Very respectfully, a
WALTON SHIELDS, it
Attorney for Board. II
DR.. Atterberry then stated that ac- n
ordinp to the opinion of their at al
orney the Board was liable for moth
40 and as to an extension of time he
id not think they were entitled to L
hat. as they had taken teams OFT the II
,ork when they could be used. That NJ
ne Injunction was dissolved on the W
9TH of August and they were noti- to
ed on the first of September; that IN
.om then till time of completion they ne
ad four months and if they had kept oN
,e teams all at work they could CT
ave completed the contract. nc
Mr.. Roach claimed they could not
ork when the Injunction was on ana WI
gally they were due damages and M
ltension. -
DR. Walker asked Mr.. Roach could pl
not have worked the teams on TINS up
mile somewhere else no
ring that time. -
Mr. Roach said no, as each firm had
e other work full under way. But
r Walker asked what difference did VI
make if they did, the contract was lai
! TO M. ]. Roach & Co., and this M
mpany was expected to complete co
e whole contract and it made no NC