37 Ga. App. 797 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1928
Batson-Cook Company, on March 11, 1924, entered into a written agreement with Frank T. Hines, director of United States Veterans’ Bureau, as contracting officer on behalf of the United States Government, for the construction of certain addi
Hachmeister-Lind Chemical Company, about December 1, 1924, completed the work of installing the composition floors, and received from Batson-Cook Company the full consideration therefor; but, because the principal contract provided that “all work under this contract shall be guaranteed for one year from the date of the final settlement under this contract, except when a different period is specifically prescribed,” the Batson-Cook Company required the Iiachmeister-Lind Chemical Company to furnish a bond with security, the condition of which was as follows: “The condition of this obligation is such that if the said principal shall well and truly, at the request of the said obligee, make any and all repairs to the Halieomp flooring laid in the U. S. Veterans’ Hospital No. 62, ordinary wear and tear excepted, caused by defective material or workmanship, for a period of one year from the date of the final acceptance by the U. S. Veterans’ Bureau or to the 26th day of January, 1926, and to the satisfaction of the said U. S. Veterans’ Bureau, and will fulfill and complete all warranties made by the said principal in its contract and specifications executed and delivered to the said obligee for the said work, then this obligation to be void; otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue:” and Boyal Indemnity Company executed this undertaking as surety for the Hachmeister-Lind Company, the principal therein. Within the period in the guarantee provision, certain defects appeared in the composition floors, and this
Haehmeister-Lind Chemical Company having failed and refused to replace the defective floors, Batson-Cook Company caused them to be replaced and repaired by Thomas Moulding Brick Company, at a cost of $2920.92, and subsequently brought suit for this sum, together with traveling expenses amounting to $165.29, and engineer’s fees amounting to $126.25; and for the aggregate of these sums, with interest thereon amounting to $195.02, obtained a verdict and judgment against Royal Indemnity Company as surety upon the bond of Haehmeister-Lind Chemical Company
In support of thp defendant’s motion for a new trial (which, of course, was overruled by the court below) there are three assignments of error. The first of these relates to the admission in evidence, over the defendant’s objection, of the letter of M. C. Baines, medical officer in charge, to the Batson-Cook Company, under date of December 3, 1925. It appears from the record that the sole purpose of offering this letter in evidence was to prove notice to Batson-Cook Company and to Hachmeister Chemical Company of the condition of the floors. It seems proper that the plaintiff was permitted to show that notice of the defective condition of the floors was brought home to the Batson-Cook Company within the period prescribed by the guaranty, and this without reference to manner or source. Nor is it seen bow this in anywise could have prejudiced the defendant.
The second assignment of error challenges the action of the court in admitting in evidence, over the objection of the defendant, the letter of Frank T. Hines, the contracting officer and director general, addressed to Batson-Cook Company, under date of March 8, 1926, hereinbefore referred to, on the ground that the evidence is irrelevant and immaterial, and further that because the contracting officer did not personally inspect the floors, but rendered his decision upon the report made to him by S. B. Walsh, an engineer of the construction division of the Veterans’ Bureau, that decision was wholly ineffective and the letter inadmissible. The point is argued by counsel for the defendant with considerable earnestness. But the complete answer to this contention is found in the terms of the contract between the parties concerned. It is provided that the contracting officer in effect is the sole arbiter of all “claims, doubts, and disputes,” and that his decision “shall be final and conclusive.” It provides no procedure to be employed or followed by him in that connection. It. leaves him wholly free to pursue his own method of securing information and
What has been said with reference to this assignment of error disposes of the remaining assignment of error on the charge of the court to the jury.
Judgment affirmed.