Court Opinion

ID: 9644227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:50:28.014438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:10.026259
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice (concurring). On issues A and C, I agree with the majority. On issue B, I reach the same result, but by an entirely different process of reasoning. The majority holds that one bond is a statutory performance bond and the other bond is a contract bond. I find it unnecessary to make such a decision, because the evidence in this case clearly establishes that there has never been a final estimate so as to allow the six-months limitation period to commence under either bond. The only estimate ever made was entitled: “Estimate No. 7 and Semi-final. ’ ’ This was an estimate made by the Engineer for the District on October 11, 1951, and indicated certain defects. The Engineer has never made his final inspection or released the retained money, so the six-months limitation period provided by Statute has never commenced to run. I think it better to put the opinion on that basis, rather than to decide a statutory question.