Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co. v. Jahn & Bressi

268 P. 169, 148 Wash. 37, 1928 Wash. LEXIS 839
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJune 8, 1928
DocketNo. 20428. En Banc.
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 268 P. 169 (Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co. v. Jahn & Bressi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co. v. Jahn & Bressi, 268 P. 169, 148 Wash. 37, 1928 Wash. LEXIS 839 (Wash. 1928).

Opinions

Fullerton, C. J.

Sometime prior to the year 1923, the city of Seattle, by ordinance, provided for additions to its municipally owned water supply system. A part of the plan contemplated taking water from an inland lake, some sixteen miles distant from the city, known as Lake Youngs. On November 6,1923, the *39 city prepared plans and specifications for the addition, and called for bids for its construction. Nicholas F. Jahn and Vincent Bressi, co-partners as Jahn & Bressi, were the successful bidders therefor, and, on February 13, 1924, a contract for the construction of the addition was awarded to them. At the time of the execution of the contract, they gave a bond to the city, with the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, as surety, in the sum of $500,000, conditioned according to the requirements of the statute applicable in such cases. The contractors entered on the actual prosecution of the work in April, 1924. On April 3, 1925, they sublet a part of it to the Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Company, who shortly thereafter entered upon its performance. Both the original contractor and the subcontractor continued in the work until August 21, 1925. Prior thereto differences had arisen over the performance of the work between the contractors and the city, which, becoming acute on that day, resulted in a notice from the contractors to the city to the effect that they had ceased work because of a breach of the contract on the part of the city, and a notice from the city to the contractors directing them to cease work because of a breach of the contract on their part. The subcontractor, at the solicitation of the bondsman, continued work on its subcontract until September 4 thereafter, when it ceased at the direction of the city. The city subsequently let the unfinished part of the work to one J. M. Clapp, who completed it to the satisfaction of the city on April 9, 1926.

The work called for by the original contract was of considerable magnitude. It required the construction of a concrete lined tunnel conduit, eight feet in internal diameter and approximately 8,000 feet in *40 length, leading from the margin of the lake mentioned, through the highlands surrounding it to a connection with the city’s established reservoirs. The intake was six hundred feet out into the waters of the lake from the mouth of the tunnel conduit, and its insertion required excavation from the bottom of the lake for a considerable space surrounding it, and also required the excavation of a channel for the insertion of a water conduit, leading from the intake to the tunnel conduit. The excavation for the first of these purposes was denominated “Item 1” on the city’s specifications, and the quantity of material to be excavated was estimated at 20,000 cubic yards. The second was denominated “Item 5,” with an estimated quantity of material to be excavated of 7,500 cubic yards.

The principal contract was largely performed by Jahn & Bressi. The contract between them and the city, of Seattle is what is commonly known as a unit price .contract. By its terms, they were to be paid according to the quantity of material removed, the payments to cover the entire cost of the work. It was provided that they were to be paid for the work on monthly estimates to be made by the city’s engineers, as the work progressed, less a fixed percentage to be retained by the city until the completion and acceptance of the work. For the work performed they were paid on estimated quantities of the work completed, less the retained percentage, to the end of June, 1925. The amount paid was $1,176,095.49. The amount of the reserve at that time was $127,609.57. Between June 30, 1925, and the termination of the contract, they had earned, according to estimates of the city engineer, an additional sum of $19,614.98. The contractors had, during the progress of the work, incurred a number of obligations for supplies and materials in addition to the work performed under the subcon *41 tract, and the holders of the obligations, shortly after the cessation of the work by the principal contractors, filed claims against their bondsman. The subcontractor also filed such a claim. The claims so filed aggregated $189,821.66.

In this action, the subcontractor sought to recover against Jahn & Bressi and their bondsman for the work performed under their subcontract. It made parties defendant to the action all of the claimants who had filed claims against the bond. The claimants appeared in the action and set up their respective claims and sought judgment thereon against Jahn & Bressi and the bondsman. Jahn & Bressi and the bondsman took issue upon the amount of the claim of the subcontractor, and the bondsman took issue on many of the claims filed against its bond, contending, as to a part of them, that they were not timely filed, and as to others, that they contained non-lienable items, or, perhaps more accurately, contained items not chargeable against the bond. The trial court, with commendable patience and painstaking care, heard and determined the issues, and entered a judgment from which only the subcontractor and the bondsman appeal.

To an understanding of the questions raised by the appeal of the subcontractor, some further statement of the facts is necessary. That company undertook to do the excavation surrounding the intake to be constructed in the lake, and the excavation necessary to permit the laying of the water conduit reaching from the intake to the tunnel conduit hereinbefore mentioned; the work being that required by item 1 and item 5 of the city’s specifications. The contract is in the form of letters addressed to Jahn & Bressi by the dredging company. The first of the letters reads as follows:

*42 “Messrs. Jahn & Bressi, “March 27th, 1925.
“L. C. Smith Building,
“Seattle, Washington.
“Gentlemen:
“Referring to dredging in Youngs Lake:
“This is to advise that we have looked over this work, and will undertake it on the following terms:
“(1) Dredging at intake, outside of Station 6, as shown on profile, to comply with the city specifications, Thirty-four Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-four Dollars ($34,684.00) lump sum;
“(2) Excavation for outlet conduit, lake section, between stations 12 and 6, One and 57/100 Dollars ($1.57) per cubic yard; we to be paid for actual quantities removed, and you to have the privilege of stopping work at any time that it seems to your best interest to do so. We, on our part, shall excavate as closely as possible to the required section; but, as noted above, shall expect payment for all material removed.
“The level of the water in the lake will govern in part, the limits of our dredging operations between Station 6 and Station 12.
“In addition to the price quoted, you are to furnish free power, delivered at the site, and free transportation to and from the work for our plant and supplies.

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

Related

King County, V. D & R Excavating, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2023
Norris Industries v. Halverson-Mason Constructors
529 P.2d 1113 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1974)
C-Star Concrete Corp. v. Hawaiian Insurance & Guaranty Co.
509 P.2d 758 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1973)
United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Goerig
195 P.2d 91 (Washington Supreme Court, 1948)
Hazard v. C. E. O'Neill Co.
108 P.2d 660 (Washington Supreme Court, 1940)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. City of Tacoma
90 P.2d 226 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Woodbury Granite Co.
101 F.2d 689 (D.C. Circuit, 1938)
Terry v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
82 P.2d 532 (Washington Supreme Court, 1938)
Lidral-Wiley, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
38 P.2d 346 (Washington Supreme Court, 1934)
City of Tacoma v. Peterson
25 P.2d 1034 (Washington Supreme Court, 1933)
Vanasse v. Cavey
9 P.2d 60 (Washington Supreme Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 P. 169, 148 Wash. 37, 1928 Wash. LEXIS 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puget-sound-bridge-dredging-co-v-jahn-bressi-wash-1928.