Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1916-07-11
OPINION Of SUPREME L! L court
IN ATk|NSON-C|TY CASE


jqured by said specifications.
Z. That the cost of construction
of said Improvement for which said
assessment is made against the prop
erty of this objector includes items
not lawfully included therein, and
is excessive, and unlawful.
The objections were amended up
on the trial to conform with the
proof, as follows:
Nov comes the appellant, C. T..
Atkinson, and amends his objections
to the manner in which the con-
tract was performed on Wilson Az
enue, and his objections to the paw
ing therein, to conform with the
proof and amends the sixth objec-
ton by adding thereto: Division d.
And stating that the concrete fOun-
dation for said pavement was not of
the thickness required by said speci-
fications and did not comply with
the said specifications in that the
same was not four inches thick;
that the fact that the same did not
comply with the specifications was
concealed from the plaintiff and not
discovered until after the trial of
II this case: that the evidence shows
the facts under which said founda-
| tion was laid, and it conclusively ap-
pears that the contractor and the
| city officials were guilty of fraud in
laying or permitting the same to be
so laid, and permitting the same to
lie covered and reporting the same
as having been laid IN compliance
with the plans and specifications"
The objections filed to the curb
and gutter assessment were substan-
TALLY in this form:
l. That said assessment is in
equitable, unjust and largely in eX-
cess of the benefits derived there
from.
2. That said Improvement was
not ordered as by law provided.
8. That no valid contract was
ever let or entered into by said City
for the construction of said improve
ment.
4. That said curb and gutter
We're not constructed according to
specifications, or according to the
lalleged contract entered into by said
City with the contractors construct
ing same, in the following respects.
among others:
la That the material used for
the foundation of said curb and gut
ter was not of the quality required
by said specifications.
CD That the concrete used in
the construction of, said curb and
gutter was not mixed by said speci-
fication.
(c.) That the concrete was not
placed in layers as said specified
lions require.
AS to the paving, it appears that
in the year 1913, the City of Webster
City paved Wilson Avenue. No
question is raised on this appeal as
to the preliminary resolution. The
plans and specifications for the pave
ment provided among other things
for third kind of pavement, ,desi-
gnated: "Asphaltic Concrete Pave
ment" Quoting, the specifications
read as follows:
"These specifications provide for
two distinct classes of asphaltic
concrete pavement, designated as
Glass A and Glass B, Contractors may
bid upon either or both classes as
they may desire"
Glass A, provides for the use OF
artificial asphalt.
Glass B, required the contractor
to use refined Bermudez Lake as
phalt.
4 Glass B provides for better
grade of asphalt than is required
by Class A, and more expensive
paving.
i The notice to contractors inviting
sealed proposals distinctly speci-
fled the two classes of asphalt paw
ling. The sealed proposal of Zit-
terrell & Sullivan, who constructed
the paving contained bid upon
both classes of asphaltic paving.
By such sealed proposal they OF
fered to construct the Class A as
phalt paving for $l.71, and the Clas:
b asphalt paving for $1.76.
, Their proposal as to the asphalti'
: construction is as follows:
: mo. for Asphaltfc Concrete
| Pavement, Class "A per square
? yard Sill.
! mo 5 for Asphaltic Concret'
e Pavement, Glass b per square yart
5 $1.76."
Their sealed proposal on thes
S classes Of work was the lowest pro
: lposal submitted. The proposals o
: the various bidders including one o
4 Zitterell and Sullivan, were opene,