Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Clark

Citations

• 178 U.S. 353
• 20 S. Ct. 924
• 44 L. Ed. 1099
• 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1685

Syllabus

<p>The record shows that the cause came on for trial without a jury, a trial by jury having been expressly waived by written consent of the parties, that a referee was duly appointed by similar consent, in accordance with the rules and customs of the District in which the trial was had, and that his findings, rulings and decisions were made those of the court. Held, that the question whether the judgment rendered was warranted by the facts found was open for consideration in the Circuit Court of Appeals, and is so here.</p> <p>Clark contracted with the railway company for the construction of part of its road. He also contracted for the completion of his work on a day named. It was not completed till some time after that day. Clark contended that the failure was caused by the neglect of the company to procure a right of way. When the time for settlement came there were also other disputes between him and the company, which are set forth in detail in the statement of facts. The result was that Clark signed a paper in which, after stating the disputed claims in detail, it was said: “Now therefore be it known that I, the said Heman Clark, have received of and from the said Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, the sum of one hundred and seventy three thousand, five hundred and thirty two and dollars, in full satisfaction of the amount due me on said estimates, and in full satisfaction of all claims and demands of every kind, name and nature, arising from or growing out of said contract of March 6, 1886, and of the construction of said railroad, excepting the obligation of said railway company to account for said foi’ty thousand dollars, as herein provided.” This paper after signature was given by him to the' railway company, and in return they gave him a check for the balance named. Five years and more after this transaction this action was brought to recover the disputed claims. Held, that Clark was barred by his release from recovering the disputed sums.</p