The herald-advance. (Milbank, S.D.) 1890-1922, 1921-09-16
COURT HOUSE
LITIGATION SETTLED
PANY LOSES LEGAL BATTLE
To GRANT COUNTY

The settlement made during tho
week by the county commissioners
with the Maryland Casualty companv
of Baltimore, Md, brings to mind the
various phases of the litigation and
| incidents in the construction of the
court house.
The contract for the building was
| let 10 the j. B. Evans Construction
| CO., of Mexico, Mo-, on the 3rd day
of July, 1915, for $4,000, and was
signed by j. b. Evans as president of
the company, and on behalf of the
county by John Maxwell, George Nit
chell and {. A. Berg as county CON-
missioners and E. M. Harper, county
auditor c. E. Bell Of Minneapolis
was the architect.
When the contract was let to the
Evans company, there had been sew
eral other bids in competition, but all
| Of them were for much larger sums,
and it was realized that the margin of
profit to the contracting firm would
be narrow one The Evans company
started the construction of the build
ing with ! r. Haswell as forman in
! charge OF the work. Butler Smith
was appointed superintendent of con
struetion by the county and work con-
tinusl under this arrangement until
March. 1916, when the Evans Con-
struction Company defaulted in it
contract and work ceased The ris-
ing prices in material and labor had
commenced to make itself felt, and
the construction company was unable
to go ahead with the building The
company, however, had been placed
under bonds to the county to complete
the building. The Maryland Casualty
Co, Of Baltimore, Md, through J. l..
Humphrey, of ST. Louis, Mo-, mad is
sued and executed bond as security
for the performance OF the Evans
contract. VIM. +. Atkinson an Off
Ger and stakeholder of the Evans com
pany, agreed to indemnify the Casual
isy company on its bond. Atkinson
attempted to take over and fulfill the
contract but was unable to accomplish
ANYTHING definite. The county au-
thOrities notified the Casualty coin-
pany of the failure of the construc-
ton company to complete their con-
tract and asked the latter to take
over the completing OF the building
but the latter replied that they were
not in the business OF building cont
houses. The construction company
had received from the county and
paid out something like S51 ,H75, and
it was evident the balance on the con-
tract price would not anywhere near
pay for the completion Of the build
ing under the contract. On August
4th, 1916, the county took over The
building and proceeded with the CON
struction work, engaging j. L.. Has
well as foreman and superint enden.,
and the building was completed in
June, 1917.
Suit was brought by Robert p.
Jones, then states attorney, in Febru
afy, 1917, against the Maryland Cas-
ualte Compan and the J. &. Evan,
Construction Company to recover for
the county the COS. OF the compe-
tion of the building over and above
the contract price and also for the
amount of%laims made 10y the various
material men and lahorers against
the county on account Of the failu.e
OF the construction company to pay
for the material and labor furnished
to it and used in the construction Of
The building. There were about sixty
suits brought by these various claim
ants against the county, most oi
whom We're represented by Thad L.
Fuller. While these suits were being
litigated5 all being tried in Circ,li..
court and five appeals to the Supreme
court being taken, the case of tha
county against the casualty company
was continued until final determina
tion Of all other suits.
In February, 1920, the case of the
county against the casualty company
and the construction company wa;
tried ar Milbank before Judge Frank
Anderson. On September 18th, 1920,
Judge Anderson entered judgment
in favor OF the county against the
casualty company for the sum of
42y858.97, from which the casualty
company gave notice Of its intention
to appeal to the Supreme court.
J. H. Voorhees, u Bailey & voor-
hees Of Sioux Falls, represented the
casualty conapany, and Robert D.
Jones had direct charge Of the case
for Grant county and was assisted by
Case & Cass Of watertown, S. n.
The litigation was Of the character