Noyes v. Harrison County

Supreme Court of Iowa

Noyes v. Harrison County

10 N.W. 751, 57 Iowa 312

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedDecember 12, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 N.W. 751 (Noyes v. Harrison County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Noyes v. Harrison County, 10 N.W. 751, 57 Iowa 312 (iowa 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Seevers, J.

^i^CTvhorsjunction?" The grounds upon which relief is asked, in substance are, that the ditch was not constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications, and that the board of supervisors fraudulently and negligently paid for more work than was actually done or was required to be done according to the specifications. The claim being the amount of excavation according to the specifications was only about two thousand cubic yards, while the board paid for upwards of five thousand yards.

The county surveyor made a report to the board of the number of cubic yards excavated, and the board after examining the ditch, determined it had been completed in accordance with the contract, and paid the contractor for the amount of earth excavated as shown by the report of the surveyor. Under such circumstances in the absence of fraud the action of the board cannot be reviewed in this proceeding. Patterson v. Baumer, 43 Iowa, 477.

There is not a particle of evidence tending to show fraud or collusion on the part of the board, unless the fact that the amount of excavation paid for exceeded that called for by the specifications is sufficient to establish such proposition. We do not think it is. It must be remembered the county surveyor reported the amount of excavation actually done, and there is no evidence showing he thereby perpretrated a fraud. It is not to be presumed the board had the requisite knowledge to [314]*314enable them to determine the amount of excavation. They were not even guilty of negligence in relying on the report of the. county surveyor, much less of fraud.

This ditch was constructed .at the instance of the plaintiffs, and they knew they were bound to pay therefor, and yet they took no steps to inform themselves as to whether it had been properly constructed in accordance with the specifications until it was paid for by the county. The result of their present action if successful, would be to shift the burden from themselves upon all the tax payers of the county. We think the objection now made in the absence of fraud comes too late.

Affirmed.

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

Seevers, J.

^i^CTvhorsjunction?" The grounds upon which relief is asked, in substance are, that the ditch was not constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications, and that the board of supervisors fraudulently and negligently paid for more work than was actually done or was required to be done according to the specifications. The claim being the amount of excavation according to the specifications was only about two thousand cubic yards, while the board paid for upwards of five thousand yards.

The county surveyor made a report to the board of the number of cubic yards excavated, and the board after examining the ditch, determined it had been completed in accordance with the contract, and paid the contractor for the amount of earth excavated as shown by the report of the surveyor. Under such circumstances in the absence of fraud the action of the board cannot be reviewed in this proceeding. Patterson v. Baumer, 43 Iowa, 477.

There is not a particle of evidence tending to show fraud or collusion on the part of the board, unless the fact that the amount of excavation paid for exceeded that called for by the specifications is sufficient to establish such proposition. We do not think it is. It must be remembered the county surveyor reported the amount of excavation actually done, and there is no evidence showing he thereby perpretrated a fraud. It is not to be presumed the board had the requisite knowledge to [314]*314enable them to determine the amount of excavation. They were not even guilty of negligence in relying on the report of the. county surveyor, much less of fraud.

This ditch was constructed .at the instance of the plaintiffs, and they knew they were bound to pay therefor, and yet they took no steps to inform themselves as to whether it had been properly constructed in accordance with the specifications until it was paid for by the county. The result of their present action if successful, would be to shift the burden from themselves upon all the tax payers of the county. We think the objection now made in the absence of fraud comes too late.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.W. 751, 57 Iowa 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noyes-v-harrison-county-iowa-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack