Bates County v. Wills

Eighth Circuit

Bates County v. Wills

200 F. 143, 118 C.C.A. 361, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1819

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 1912

DocketNo. 3,470

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 200 F. 143 (Bates County v. Wills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bates County v. Wills, 200 F. 143, 118 C.C.A. 361, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1819 (8th Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bates County, Mo., the plaintiff in error, petitions for a rehearing because of the expression in the opinion (111 C. C. A. 354, 190 Fed. 522) that “a willful failure or refusal of the engineer to give estimates would not defeat their (defendants in error's) right to recover.” In the use of the expression there was no purpose to depart from or modify the rule, frequently expressed by this court, that the action of an engineer, architect, or other person invested with the power of decision as to the performance of a contract is conclusive, “except in case of fraud or such gross mistake as implies had faith or a failure to exercise an honest judgment.” City of Trinidad v. Hokasona, 102 C. C. A. 421, 178 Fed. 438; Cook v. Foley, 81 C. C. A. 237, 152 Fed. 41; Roberts, etc., Shoe Co. v. Westinghouse, etc., Co., 74 C. C. A. 348, 143 Fed. 218; Choctaw & M. R. Co. v. Newton, 71 C. C. A. 655, 40 Fed. 225; Guild v. Andrews, 70 C. C. A. 49, 137 Fed. 369; Elliott v. Railway, 21 C. C. A. 3, 74 Fed. 707.

The petition is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Bates County, Mo., the plaintiff in error, petitions for a rehearing because of the expression in the opinion (111 C. C. A. 354, 190 Fed. 522) that “a willful failure or refusal of the engineer to give estimates would not defeat their (defendants in error's) right to recover.” In the use of the expression there was no purpose to depart from or modify the rule, frequently expressed by this court, that the action of an engineer, architect, or other person invested with the power of decision as to the performance of a contract is conclusive, “except in case of fraud or such gross mistake as implies had faith or a failure to exercise an honest judgment.” City of Trinidad v. Hokasona, 102 C. C. A. 421, 178 Fed. 438; Cook v. Foley, 81 C. C. A. 237, 152 Fed. 41; Roberts, etc., Shoe Co. v. Westinghouse, etc., Co., 74 C. C. A. 348, 143 Fed. 218; Choctaw & M. R. Co. v. Newton, 71 C. C. A. 655, 40 Fed. 225; Guild v. Andrews, 70 C. C. A. 49, 137 Fed. 369; Elliott v. Railway, 21 C. C. A. 3, 74 Fed. 707.

The petition is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 F. 143, 118 C.C.A. 361, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-county-v-wills-ca8-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack