Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1916-07-11

THAT the pavement was just as good
as though the contract had been
complied with. Some of the cases
hold that the City cannot be heard
to say the original requirements in
the specifications did not add any to
the value of the Improvement and
that substitute was just as good.
In Littell VS.. Webster County, 1872
Iowa, 2p6. at 215, it was said:
Substantial performance as de-
fined by the cases, permitted only
such omissions or deyiations from
the contract as are inadvertent or
unintentional, and not due to bad
faith, do not impair the structure as
a whole, are remedial without doing
material damage to other parts of
the building tearing down or recon
struction, and may without injus-
tice be compensated for by reduction
from the contract price"
See also:
Wingert VS.. Upton, 1876 Iowa, 81;
Henry VS.. ions, 1874 Iowa, 366;
In Re, Apple, 161 Iowa. 1922.
At the risk of repetition, we shall
refer as briefly as may be to some of
the masters wherein the contract
was not complied with The foun-
dation of the paving was not made
of broken stone and of the size re-
quired by the specifications; the con-
crete for the curb was not placed in
layers and tamped as required by the
specifications; the material was not
mixed in dry state as provided by
the Specifications; and we think
from the entire record it was salts
factorily shown that the gravel,
sand and cement were not in the
proportion required; the provision in
reference to blowing in the prepara-
ton for sub-grade for the paving and
the use of mattacks and shovels was
not complied with. nor was the sub
grade moistened before the spread
ing of the concrete as required; the
foundation for the paving was not
of the required thickness, nor was it
substantially SO. The specimen of
the thickness was taken from the
center of the street and in the trav-
eled portion thereof There was no
attempt to show that the average
thickness of the entire pavement was
as required by. the specifications.
Other circumstances have been refer
red to, and we shall not prolong the
opinion to notice them further.
The writer is of opinion that con-
tracts of this character ought to be
strictly complied with, perhaps more
SO than under the rules heretofore
announced by the court. 1t is recog-
nized that in some instances proper
ty owners object to an assessment
against their property. even where
there has been full compliance with
the contract, and that trivial objec-
lions are made in an attempt to de-
feat the assessment. 1t is doubtless
right that where the contractor has
honestly and in good faith attempt
ed to fully comply with his contract
and there is only some slight or I'M
intentional defect which could be
readily remedied and the cost de-
Quoted, the assessment ought to be
made. On the other hand, it is well
known that in many instances i'm
provements of this character are not
well performed and the contract and
specifications are substantially ig-
nored. at least in many particulars,
and then the doctrine that there has
been substantial compliance is in
voked. To use an inelegant express
sion, but one in more or less common
use at this tife, the contractor simply
does enough work to try to get by"
under the rule of substantial per-
Torrance. The City is the agent for
the property owners. The property
owners have but little. If anything,
TO say during the progress of the
work, and many times do not have
The time or inclination to examine
he work carefully as it progresses.
Some of the work is not discoverable
without closer observation. As al
natter of common honesty, such
contracts ought to be strictly COM
,lied with and performed, and the
'ity authorities should see to it that
t is So
Our conclusion. is that the judg-
nent of the District Court is right
md it oughc to be and is affirmed.
Evans, c. j., Deemer and Laid, j..
oncur.
Buys Fine Lot.
w. A. Dawson has bought fine