Talk:Board of Commissioners v. Diebold Safe Lock Company/Opinion of the Court

This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page.

Information about this edition
Edition:	Board of Commissioners v. Diebold Safe Lock Company, March 4, 1885, by the Diebold Safe & Lock Company, a corporation of the state of Ohio, against the board of commissioners of Delaware county, in the state of Indiana, by a claim in the form of a complaint, filed with the county auditor, and by him presented to the board of county commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Statutes of Indiana of 1881, (which are copied in the margin,) #fn1 and containing the following allegations: That on January 20, 1882, the board of commissioners entered into a written contract with William H Meyers and Edward F Meyers, partners as W H Meyers & Son, a copy of which was annexed, showing that Meyers & Son agreed to construct a jail for the county on or before September 4, 1882, agreeably to the plans and specifications of a certain architect, and to provide all the materials therefor, for the sum of $20,000, which the board of commissioners agreed to pay in monthly payments, on the architect's certificate, reserving on each payment 20 per cent, to be paid on the completion and acceptance of the building; Meyers & Son agreed to give bond to secure the performance of the agreement; and it was agreed that 'the county will not in any manner be answerable to or accountable for any loss or damages that may happen in or to said works, or any part or parts thereof, respectively, or for any of the materials or other things used and employed in finishing and completing the said works,' and that, 'should the contractors fail to finish the work on or before the time agreed upon, they shall pay to the party of the first part the sum of twenty-five dollars per diem for each and every day thereafter the said works shall remain unfinished, as and for liquidated damages' That a part of the work to be done and materials furnished under the contract consisted of iron-work; and that on March 6, 1882, Meyers & Son assigned to the plaintiff so much of that contract as related to this work by an agreement in writing, as follows: .
Source:	Board of Commissioners v. Diebold Safe Lock Company from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/133
Contributor(s):	BenchBot
Level of progress:	Text being edited
Notes:	Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information.
Proofreaders:

Start a discussion about Board of Commissioners v. Diebold Safe Lock Company/Opinion of the Court

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikisource the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve Board of Commissioners v. Diebold Safe Lock Company/Opinion of the Court.

Start a discussion