Year: 1872




H the Case Of II. K. Wiley as
/ Fractional School District NO. On


of E'dT Par and .fnfreyp.


COOLEY, JusTIcE


This action is brought TO recover
for the construction of school building
for the defendant. The declaration
contained special count on the con
tract, i'll which it was avOwed that the
building was completed in substantial
conformity with all the terms and con.
ditions of the said contract and was
received aud accepted by the said de
tendant As and for compliance on the
part of the said plaintiff with all the
terms and conditions of the said con.
tract on the part of the said plaintiff to
be observed and performed 1t also
contained the common counts. The de.
fendant pleaded the general Issue, with
notice of claim TO recover damages for
non performance by the plaintiff.


On the trial the contract was put in
evidence, and il appears thereby that
the building was to be completely iin-
ished aud SO delivered mp to the dis
trict) clean and N good order for use
by the fifteenth Of July, y ID. 1870, :"
All the work was 10 De "eXecute1 IN the
best and most workmanliko manner, and
agreeably to such direction as may be
gwen from time to time by G. =. Ran
iall, architect, or his assistant who is
employed by the district to supcriutcnd
these works, and to his full aud entire
satisfaction without reference thereon TO
any other person. The admission or
allowance on any. claim for alterations
or extras was to be Judged or determin-
ed and adjudged ''solely by the Super
intendeut above named, and the dis
trict was to pay on the certificate of the
architect or the superintendent for the
full and entire completion of the build
ing according to the plans and specii
cations, s2S, 100, as follows: Eighty
five per cent from time to time in the
monthly estimates, and the balance
when the building should be completed.


The plaintiff testified that he con.
structed the building aud supposed it
was entirely finished in August 1870.
The district appointed an overseer to
investigate the work rs it progressed.
At first one Godfrey acted in that capa-
city, afterwards Joseph Davy, who was
there constantly until the building was
erected and enclosed Payments were
received from time TO time from the
district, but no certificate was ever
given to draw it upon. The district
began using the building in September
1870, and il has been used for a Union
School ever since. Mr. Davy found
fault with the roof when it was mostly
OH, and the district served on plaintiff
notice that they did not accept the slat-
ing of the roof because not in compliance
with the contract. Tine notice bears
date in December, 1869. The COM
plant was that the states were too
large and of an inferior quality. Plain
tiff could not find smaller slate in mar.
ket. Afterwards another notice was
served of which the following is copy:


JANUARY =, 1871.
a. II. Widely, Esq.


SIR: The architect Of our school
building, G. 2. Randall of Chicago
His, was here on the 20th Of Dccem-
Der, 1870, and made as thorough an in
inspection of the work as circumstances
would allow, and has submitted his re.
port, copy of which is herewith en-.
closed. We therefore, in accordance
with bis recommendation therein con.
tanned, aud as provided in the contract
request you to 60 on and reconstruct
repair and make such changes and addi.
ton to the work as can be done without
injury to the building and as indicated
in his report, and so far as practicable
put the work in such condition as the
specifications and plans clearly indicate.
Such work as can be done at once is to
be so done, and such as cannot be prop.
erly done in cold weather to be done
Immediately after the weather shall be.
come sufficiently favorable for doing
such work, and all under the direction
of the school board, or such sub super.
intendent as may be placed in charge of
the work, in accordance with the terms
of the contract for this work. Should
you neglect or refuse to proceed with
the work to completion at or after the
time indicated in the contract, three
days from the serving of this notice, the
school board will consider themselves at
liberty to employ such help as may be
necessary and finish and complete the
work themselves, aud deduct from the
price and amount you were to receive
on tho fall completion Of such work.


j. ANDREWS, Director.


The whoie amount paid toward. the
by the district was $4,000.


The plaintiff then called as a witness
a builder Of large experience who testi.
fed that he examined the building with
the plans and specifications before him
md compared the work with the specl.