Case Name: McKee v. City of Greensburg
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1903-04-07
Citations: 160 Ind. 378
Docket Number: No. 20,048
Parties: McKee v. City of Greensburg.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 160
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
McKee v. City of Greensburg.
[No. 20,048.
Filed April 7, 1903.]
Municipal Corporations. — Street Improvements. — Acceptance of Bid. — ■ Breach of Contract. — Complaint.—No .error was committed in sustaining a demurrer to a complaint against a oity for an alleged breach of contract in refusing to permit plaintiff to improve a street after accepting his bid, where it was not disclosed by the complaint whether jurisdiction had attached to make the improvement.
From Decatur Circuit Court; F. T. Ford, Judge.
Action by George McKee against the city of Greens-burg. From a judgment for defendant on demurrer to complaint, plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court, under §1337u Burns 1901.
Affirmed.
J. K. Ewing and G. F. Ewing, for appellant.
F. G. Skillman, for appellee.

Opinion:
Gillett, J.
Appellant instituted this action against appellee to recover damages against it for alleged breach of contract. He charges that appellee's common council refused to permit him to improve a street after accepting his "bid, made pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the performance of such work. A demurrer was sustained to the amended complaint, and a judgment followed that appellant take nothing.
The history of the proceedings before the common council, as set out in the amended complaint, discloses that the proceedings were had under §4288 et seq. Burns 1894, commonly known as the Barrett law. As it appears from the amended complaint that the common council entered a resolution purporting to rescind its action in accepting appellant's bid, the presumption must be in favor of such official action. State v. Wenzel, 77 Ind. 428; Adams v. Davis, 109 Ind. 10; Sanders v. Hartge, 17 Ind. App. 243. It is therefore clear that the burden was on appellant to show that' jurisdiction had attached to make the improvement. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Edgerton, 125 Ind. 455. We are unable to determine from the vague allegations of the complaint as to the character of the proposed improvement whether the improvement was of such a nature that the common council had authority to order it made under said law. See Adams v. City of Shelbyville, 154 Ind. 467, 49 L. R. A. 797, 77 Am. St. 484; Taylor v. Patton, ante, 4. Appellant was charged with notice that the power of the common council to contract was limited, and, if it had embarked on an ultra vires undertaking, its action in refusing to permit appellant to proceed was proper.
Other objections are urged to the complaint, but it is not necessary to consider them.
Judgment affirmed.