Bay County v. Nixon-Smith Const. Co.

Fifth Circuit

Bay County v. Nixon-Smith Const. Co.

294 F. 898, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2577

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 1923

DocketNo. 4087

StatusPublished

This text of 294 F. 898 (Bay County v. Nixon-Smith Const. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bay County v. Nixon-Smith Const. Co., 294 F. 898, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2577 (5th Cir. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

Bay county, Fla., sues out this writ of error to a judgment against it in favor of the plaintiffs below.

The plaintiffs sued upon a contract with the county commissioners for certain road construction. The contract provides that the' county engineer, who certified that the county was due the plaintiffs the amount of the judgment, “shall determine the amount, quality, fitness, and acceptability of all work to be paid for, and decide all questions or differences of opinion that might arise as to the interpretation of these plans and specifications, or the fulfillment of the terms of this contract.”

It is conceded that no error .was committed, if the contract provides that the engineer’s certificates should be final and conclusive upon the parties. The court submitted to the jury all questions which were raised as to the incompetency and bad faith of the-engineer. The only question before us, therefore, is as to the effect of the above quoted provision-of the contract. That provision, in our opinion, clearly and definitely constitutes the county engineer the final arbiter of the amount due to the plaintiffs under the contract.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

Bay county, Fla., sues out this writ of error to a judgment against it in favor of the plaintiffs below.

The plaintiffs sued upon a contract with the county commissioners for certain road construction. The contract provides that the' county engineer, who certified that the county was due the plaintiffs the amount of the judgment, “shall determine the amount, quality, fitness, and acceptability of all work to be paid for, and decide all questions or differences of opinion that might arise as to the interpretation of these plans and specifications, or the fulfillment of the terms of this contract.”

It is conceded that no error .was committed, if the contract provides that the engineer’s certificates should be final and conclusive upon the parties. The court submitted to the jury all questions which were raised as to the incompetency and bad faith of the-engineer. The only question before us, therefore, is as to the effect of the above quoted provision-of the contract. That provision, in our opinion, clearly and definitely constitutes the county engineer the final arbiter of the amount due to the plaintiffs under the contract.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 F. 898, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-county-v-nixon-smith-const-co-ca5-1923.