City of Kansas City v. R. J. & W. M. Boyd Construction Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

City of Kansas City v. R. J. & W. M. Boyd Construction Co.

120 P. 347, 86 Kan. 213, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 260

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 6, 1912

DocketNo. 16,782

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 P. 347 (City of Kansas City v. R. J. & W. M. Boyd Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Kansas City v. R. J. & W. M. Boyd Construction Co., 120 P. 347, 86 Kan. 213, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 260 (kan 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Mr. Boyd admitted the overpayment by the city and testified that the money on the warrant went to their credit at the bank and that they used it. Since the company got the money it is proper that th[214]*214e company should pay it back. Besides this, however, it makes no difference whether the warrant were paid directly to the company or were paid for its benefit under the order of its endorsement. There is no distinction in this respect between the portion of the warrant which represented money due the company and the portion included by mistake. .

The tort statute of limitations has no application to the city’s cause of action.

The city had the option to°pay in money or in bonds. It chose to pay in bonds, and so this is not a case of the acceptance of a less sum of money for a greater. The «contract fixed no standard of value for the bonds and there is no presumption that they were to be taken at par or at the market price or at any other price. The parties interpreted the contract to mean that the bonds were to be taken at an agreed price. ,Some were taken .-at par and some at 101%. The receipts expressed the ¿agreed price and that is the end of the matter.

The judgment is affirmed:

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

Per Curiam:

Mr. Boyd admitted the overpayment by the city and testified that the money on the warrant went to their credit at the bank and that they used it. Since the company got the money it is proper that th[214]*214e company should pay it back. Besides this, however, it makes no difference whether the warrant were paid directly to the company or were paid for its benefit under the order of its endorsement. There is no distinction in this respect between the portion of the warrant which represented money due the company and the portion included by mistake. .

The tort statute of limitations has no application to the city’s cause of action.

The city had the option to°pay in money or in bonds. It chose to pay in bonds, and so this is not a case of the acceptance of a less sum of money for a greater. The «contract fixed no standard of value for the bonds and there is no presumption that they were to be taken at par or at the market price or at any other price. The parties interpreted the contract to mean that the bonds were to be taken at an agreed price. ,Some were taken .-at par and some at 101%. The receipts expressed the ¿agreed price and that is the end of the matter.

The judgment is affirmed:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 P. 347, 86 Kan. 213, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-kansas-city-v-r-j-w-m-boyd-construction-co-kan-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack