Court Opinion

ID: 9752537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:13:50.521292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:17.271539
License: Public Domain

JONES, Judge
(dissenting).
It seems to me that plaintiff was entitled to some reasonable provision, either through a different entrance or a special exception which would have permitted him to do his work without “severe” loss. Restrictions within a military camp are on an entirely different basis from general and reasonable traffic regulations on public roads and in other public places. The post engineer could, if he thought circumstances justified such course of action, exclude entirely the public from access to the camp grounds, but if so it would seem just to make some special provision to protect plaintiff in his contract obligations. Insofar as the pleadings disclose, this was a purely local regulation. If similar regulations were applicable in other camps, the pleadings do not disclose that fact.
Aside from the provisions of article 4, neither party to a contract should be permitted to do an affirmative act which unreasonably interferes with performance by the other.
While the allegations are rather general, I would overrule the demurrer and permit the introduction of evidence in order to determine whether the restrictions were necessary and reasonable or were arbitrary and unreasonable as applied to plaintiff.
I am authorized to state that LITTLE-TON, Judge, concurs in this opinion.