Hutchinson

In this action plaintiff had judgment against the defendant for the sum of $2,116 for and on account of certain dredger work done and performed by the plaintiff for the defendant district, from which judgment the defendant appeals.

The action is upon two counts: One upon an express contract ; the other upon quantum meruit.- The trustees of the district were included as defendants, but" their motion for a nonsuit was sustained by the trial court and the cause of action as against them dismissed. On the twenty-sixth day of November, 1919, at a meeting of the trustees of the defendant district, the following motion was adopted, to wit: “Upon motion duly made and unanimously carried, it was ordered that the drainage canal running across the district should be cleaned, beginning on the Sand Mound Slough and extending down to at least the bridge across said canal on the Hotchkiss land.”

This motion appears to be the only record made by the board of trustees of said district in relation to the contemplated work. It appears from the transcript that prior to this date and on or about the twenty-first day of November, 1919, William T. Sesnon, one of the trustees of the district, had…