#### Joliet Bridge & Iron Company, Appellant, v. East Side Levee & Sanitary District, Appellee.

(Not to foe reported in full.)

Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. W. M. Vandeventer, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 5, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the Jdiet Bridge '& Iron Company, plaintiff, against the East Side Levee & Sanitary District, defendant, to recover a balance alleged to be due for material furnished and labor performed in constructing four bridges in said district, and for the expenses incurred in removing and replacing a span in one of said bridges. From a judgment, on a directed verdict, in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Whitnbl & Whitnel, for appellant.

Thomas E. Gillespie, for appellee.

*576Abstract of the-Decision.

Building and constbuction contbacts, § 83 * —when estimate By engineer and agreement as to extra work are necessary to recovery of cost. Under specifications for the construction of bridges for a drainage district, providing that no claims for extra work or material shall be made unless expressly required in writing by the engineer in charge and the prices therefor fixed by him; that no charges for delay shall be made but an extension of time for completion of the work may be made; that the right is reserved to make changes in the plans and specifications without invalidating the contract, and if resulting in increased cost to the contractor a fair price shall be agreed upon in writing before commencing on the changed work, and the contract providing that changes or alterations required by the district shall not vitiate it, but the engineer shall determine the value of the work and reduce it to writing before the change is made and the value added or deducted from the contract price, as the case might be, no recovery can be had for extra work- in removal and replacement, under direction of the engineer, of a span of a bridge for the benefit of another contractor, where no estimate in writing is made by the engineer as to the cost thereof and no agreement made in reference thereto.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.