Public works . a contractor to transfer his contract to anotherparty, there is no law, in the absence of a state statuteon the subject and of any objection on the part of thecity, to prevent such a transfer. The transfer may be inparol, and needs no writing to effectuate it. Of course, ifthe transfer is made on specified conditions, the transfereetakes it subject to these conditions. McCubbin v. Cityof Atchison, 12 Kan. 166. One reason given for the rule that such contracts areassignable is that they are not of a class which stipulatefor the personal services, knowledge, skill and experienceof
Public works . a contractor to transfer his contract to anotherparty, there is no law, in the absence of a state statuteon the subject and of any objection on the part of thecity, to prevent such a transfer. The transfer may be inparol, and needs no writing to effectuate it. Of course, ifthe transfer is made on specified conditions, the transfereetakes it subject to these conditions. McCubbin v. Cityof Atchison, 12 Kan. 166. One reason given for the rule that such contracts areassignable is that they are not of a class which stipulatefor the personal services, knowledge, skill and experienceof another. They are for work which may be done aswell by a third person as by the contractor himself inperson. St. Louis v. Clemens, 42 Mo. 69. The United States Supreme Court makes the distinc-tion (Delaware County v. Diebold Safe Co., 133 U. S. 473,494) between contracts, such as for work upon street,held, from the nature of the subject, to imply no per-sonal confidence in the contractor, and so to be assign-. CONTINUATION OF VIEW ON OPPOSITE photographs were taken July 29, 1919. able, and those where the personal care and skill of thecontractor is necessarily relied on and so, to that extent,at least, held to be unassignable. See also Burck v. Tay-lor, 152 U. S. 634. A contract for the construction of a bridge was en-tered into with a city, which had a bond with suretiesfor the due performance of the work by the the progress of the work, the contractor assignedthe contract without the citys consent, and renouncedall interest in it and refused to go on with the work. Itwas held. Pike v. City of Waltham, 168 Mass. 581, thatthe city had a right to refuse to allow the assignee to goon with the work. If the assignee had undertaken andcompleted the work as the agent of the original contrac-tor, the contract would have been properly performed. On the same principle, Devlin v. New York, 63 N. Y. 8,it was held that the assignment by the contractor of acontra
Size: 2076px × 1204px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, booksubjectmunicip, bookyear1896
