Bowman Bros. v. Stewart

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Bowman Bros. v. Stewart, 165 Pa. 394 (Pa. 1895)
30 A. 988; 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1015
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Bowman Bros. v. Stewart

Opinion of the Court

Per. Curiam,

We find nothing in the affidavit of defence that can be regarded as a sufficient answer to the conclusive effect given, by the 44th section of the contract, to the decision of the engineer in relation to the several matters therein specified. There is no allegation of fraud or collusion between the plaintiffs and the city engineer. Averments to the effect that the latter was negligent and made mistakes are not sufficient. When the parties agreed that, “to prevent all disputes and litigation,” his decision, as to any of the matters referred to,should “be final and conclusive,” they impliedly assumed the risk of negligence and consequent mistakes.

Further consideration of the questions involved is unnecessary. They are sufficiently presented and rightly disposed of in the opinion of the court below, and on it we affirm the judgment.

Reference

Full Case Name
Bowman Bros. v. Henry Stewart
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Affidavit of defence—Contract—Paving—Arbitration—Engineer—Fraud —Waiver of negligence and mistakes. Where the parties to a paving contract agree that “ to prevent all disputes and litigation ” the decision of the city engineer, as to any of the matters referred to in the contract, should “ be final and conclusive,” an affidavit of defence in an action for the cost of the paving is insufficient which avers that the city engineer was negligent, careless and made mistakes. When the parties agreed to make the engineer’s decision final and conclusive, they waived the risk of negligence and mistakes.