Dakota Trust Co. v. City of Hankinson

205 N.W. 990, 53 N.D. 356, 1925 N.D. LEXIS 86
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 2, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 205 N.W. 990 (Dakota Trust Co. v. City of Hankinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dakota Trust Co. v. City of Hankinson, 205 N.W. 990, 53 N.D. 356, 1925 N.D. LEXIS 86 (N.D. 1925).

Opinions

Statement of facts.
An action and a special proceeding were tried together in the district court of Richland county. In the action the plaintiff sought a judgment against the defendant on two special improvement warrants for $500 each, issued by the defendant and payable out of the funds of sewer improvement districts Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The special proceeding was an application, on relation of Kistler, for a writ of mandamus directed to the defendant corporation and to the members of the city council, city officers and special assessment commission to compel the levy of special assessments to defray the cost of the improvement, on account of which two warrants, each for the sum of $500, payable from the funds of sewer improvement districts Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, had been issued, which were owned by the relator. The proceeding was later amended to include additional warrants, also owned by Kistler. Upon the application an alternative writ or order was issued requiring the levying of special assessments for the total cost of the improvement, on account of which the warrants owned by the relator had been issued. Both the action and the special proceeding came on for trial before the district judge without a jury at the same time, and it was stipulated by counsel that the evidence taken in the one case should be considered as taken in the other so far as material, and upon these appeals there is but one statement of the case. *Page 360

In the Dakota Trust Company Case, in which judgment is sought on the warrants, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled. The appeal is from the judgment and from the order overruling the motion for a new trial. In the Kistler case a judgment was entered awarding the writ as prayed for, and the appeal is from the judgment.

The facts out of which the controversy arises may be stated as follows: In 1920 the city council of the city of Hankinson undertook to establish a sewer system and a waterworks system, taking all the necessary steps therefor, as will appear from the case of Jones v. Hankinson, 48 N.D. 618, 186 N.W. 276, in which case it was held that the plaintiffs had not sustained the burden of proving irregularities in the proceedings which were alleged as a basis for injunction.

On August 12, 1920, bids were received and opened for the construction of a sewer system, and a resolution was passed for the letting of the contract to the John O'Connor Company of Fargo for $82,716.29. Under date of August 13, 1920, a contract was entered into between the city and the O'Connor Company in accordance with the resolution. The contract provided, among other things, for the doing of the work in accordance with a proposed schedule and specifications; that the city of Hankinson assumed and incurred no general liability; that the payments thereunder were to be made by warrants bearing 7 per cent interest; that the work should be subject to the approval of the engineer of the city who should superintend and inspect the work during its progress; and it provided for the completion by July 1, 1921. This date was later extended. Work was begun under this contract in 1921, and it seems that when trenches were dug in which to lay the tile or sewer pipe, there was uncovered throughout a large portion of the trenches a bed or beds of quicksand. It also appears that water seeped into the trenches, thus making the work of laying the pipe difficult; that on account of this condition the joints in the pipe, which were required by the specifications to be laid in Portland cement mortar and to be water tight, were cemented only over the top and not underneath, as the water prevented the cementing operations beneath; that the quicksand did not furnish a good foundation upon which to lay the pipe; that the steps required to be taken to improve the foundation were not taken, and that as a consequence the pipe, when laid, *Page 361 were more or less uneven; that the joints were not sufficiently tight to prevent the infiltration of quicksand and that, due to these conditions, principally the settling of the pipe in the quicksand beds and the infiltration of quicksand, the sewer system when completed worked imperfectly and throughout a large part of the area did not work at all; that it became entirely plugged up in sections and at one place, if not several, it settled so that it did not make a proper connection with the manhole; that attempts to clear the system here and there failed; that at one time — though it seems this condition was later remedied — the outlet was not properly connected with the septic tank; that a sludge bed had not been properly constructed, due to the failure to supply gravel thereon at the proper thickness; that during the progress of the work the engineers, whose duty it was to make inspections, made only cursory examinations; that there was little, if any, effort made to counteract the adverse physical conditions in order that the sewer when completed might be in more perfect condition; that even though it had been constructed according to plans and specifications, the grade of the sewer was such that it would require attention occasionally, such as flushing, in order to prevent the accumulation of solid matter at various places; that the sewer did not receive this attention on the part of the city, though several permits were given to make connections therewith. The city engineer employed was a corporation known as Dakota Engineering Construction Company.

From time to time, during the progress of the work, estimates were submitted to the city council and allowed. Among these was the following: *Page 362

Hankinson, N.D., Feb. 6th, 1922.

Honorable Mayor and City Council, Hankinson, N. Dak. Gentlemen:

We submit herewith a partial estimate of the amount due the John O'Connor Co. to date of Feby. 4th, 1922, on their contract covering the construction of a sewer system for the city of Hankinson.

5141 ft. 15" Tile in place at 3.80 per ft. .......... $19,535.80 1543 ft. 12" Tile in place at 2.30 per ft. .......... 3,548.90 5674 ft. 10" Tile in place at 2.26 per ft. .......... 12,823.24 14288 ft. 8" Tile in place at 2.00 per ft. ........... 28,576.00 55 manholes at 130.00 each ........................... 7,150.00 7 Lampholes (partial est.) at 10.00 .................. 70.00 Septic tank, 50% complete at $10,000.00 .............. 5,000.00 --------- $76,703.94 Less approx. 15% .................................... 11,703.94 ---------- $65,000.00 Less previous estimate .............................. 61,000.00 ---------- Approved for payment ............................ $4,000.00

Respectfully submitted, Dakota Engineering Const. Co.

Dakota Engineering and Construction Co. To Engineering services as per contract, 1% of estimate to the John O'Connor Co. dated Feby. 6th, 1922, 1% of $4,000.00 .... $40.00

The action of the council thereon was:

The following resolution was offered by Alderman Brown, seconded by Alderman Schuett.

Be it Resolved, that the foregoing estimate of the City Engineer approving for payment the sum of $4,000.00 to the John O'Connor Co. be allowed and approved, and that warrants be issued, executed and delivered against the proper fund in the manner provided by law. *Page 363

Roll call — 1st Ward, Brown, yes, Burfening, yes. 2nd Ward, Schuett, yes, Schramm, yes. 3rd Ward, Hoffman, absent, Peitz, absent.

On March 6, 1922 a final estimate was submitted and allowed, and payment ordered as follows:

February 28, 1922.

Hon. Mayor and City Council, Hankinson, North Dakota.

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

Related

Marks v. City of Mandan
296 N.W. 39 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1941)
In Re Cunningham
245 N.W. 896 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1932)
Southern Surety Co. v. Lafferty
43 S.W.2d 460 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Kistler v. City of Hankinson
205 N.W. 995 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
205 N.W. 990, 53 N.D. 356, 1925 N.D. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dakota-trust-co-v-city-of-hankinson-nd-1925.