Statute — Repeal of — Claim Against the State.

Claim against The State heard at January Term, 1877, ■of the Supreme Court, under Art. IY, § 9 of the Constitution.

The plaintiff and the defendant entered into the following •contract upon which this action is founded: ‘ This agreement between the Commissioners appointed by the General Assembly, &c., under the Act to provide frr the erection of .a Penitentiary, passed April 12th, 1869, acting in behalf of the State, and Michael Clements, witnesseth, that said Clem■ents in consideration of the several sums to be paid by the State at the times and in the manner provided by the conditions for that purpose, and the bid of said Clements hereto attached, hereby covenants and agrees to furnish all materials, all the convicts that can be used at sixty cents per day and all the other labor required in constructing the cell doors and frames, lochs and lock bars complete, and setting the ¡same for the erection of a Penitentiary, * * * all to' be •done * * * under the supervisions of W. J. Ilieks, Assistant Architect or such other Architect, * * * the written certificate of said Architect to be evidence of the •sufficiency of said material and work, and the bid annexed to be the basis of all estimates,” &c., &c. Signed on 19th of May, 1870, by Alfred Dockery, G. ¥m, Welker, J. R. Tlar-.rison, Alfred Ilowe and A. L. Lougee, Commissioners on the ■part of the; State, and by the plaintiff’.

The plaintiff alleged that his bid was $60 for furnishing: each cell door &c. complete and that the State accepted the-bid through its said agents, and agreed to pay for such labor and material at the contract price aforesaid. That he bought-a large quantity of iron, made sub-contracts and otherwise-went to great expense to enable him to complete the work, as agreed upon, and has at all times been ready to comply-with his part of the contract, but by reason of the failure' and refusal of defendant to comply with said contract, he-has been damaged to the amount of $30,000.

The defendant in answering the complaint insisted that' the said contract was rescinded by the Legislature, and the-alleged expense incurred by the plaintiff was needlessly and improvidently incurred and that he ought not to be relieved, of auy liability resulting therefrom.

The defendant further issisted that one of the inducements to make the said contract was that convict labor should, be used at the price stipulated, it being considered that the-same was high enough 'to offset the extravagant price off the cell doors, and that since the rescission of the contract the defendant has made better doors &c. with convict labor,, than the sample door sent by plaintiff, which door was never-accepted by the defendant but expressly rejected, and plaintiff notified that the same was subject to his order.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress