Court Opinion

ID: 9672609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:57:55.168323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:17.448979
License: Public Domain

ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING ON COUNT ONE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE COURT EN BANC.
PER CURIAM.
The City, respondent, has filed a motion for rehearing on Count I or, in the alternative, to transfer to the Court en Banc.
The principal complaint in the City’s motion is that the testimony of appellants, the Engineers, witnesses Bergendoff and Jef-fers on, for instance, an allowance for contingencies as a proper item for consideration in arriving at “the total principal amount on the bonds required to finance this project” was not believed by the trial court and that said court cannot be convicted of error in so holding.
The City’s presentation on original submission based the Engineers’ compensation on the actual costs of construction, $9,958,-207.15; whereas the Engineers based their compensation on $11,288,988.66; that is, the $13,000,000 principal amount of the bonds less interest during construction and the Engineers’ compensation. The City claims the Engineers’ estimate of $13,000,000 for the costs of the project was a careless and negligent “overestimate”. The City tacitly concedes, as we read its motion for rehearing, that a reasonable allowance for contingencies and, also, for bond discount is proper in arriving at the total principal amount of bonds “required to finance this project.” It may be that the Engineers overestimated the costs of the project. The record before us is to the effect their 5.8% compensation should be based on an amount between the City’s $9,958,207.15 costs of construction and the Engineers’ $11,288,-988.66 figure, which includes allowances for contingencies and other items but, as stated, deducts interest during construction and the Engineers’ compensation from the $13,000,000 principal amount.
As indicated, the judgment on Count I was reversed and said Count was remand*309ed for a new trial. The figures set forth in the opinion are based upon the record made on this appeal and are not to be taken as controlling upon a new trial. See Feinstein v. McGuire, Mo., 312 S.W.2d 20, 24[2, 3]; Laughlin v. Boatmen’s National Bank, 354 Mo. 467, 189 S.W.2d 974, 977 [4, 5, 7].
The City’s motion for rehearing or, in the alternative, to transfer to Court en Banc is overruled.