Thomason

Action to recover upon a contract for certain work in paving the public street in front of defendant’s premises. Findings were filed, upon which judgment was entered for plaintiffs as prayed. The findings are not questioned, nor is it claimed that the judgment is not the legal conclusion from the facts found.

Plaintiffs offered and read in evidence, without objection, a written contract, under the terms of which the plaintiffs agreed to pave the public street in front of defendant’s premises “to the satisfaction of the superintendent of public streets, highways and squares of the said city and county.” Plaintiffs then offered in evidence a resolution of the board of supervisors of the city declaring and stating that the work had been constructed to the satisfaction of the superintendent of streets, and accepting the same. To this offer defendant objected upon the ground that it was irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, and it is now claimed that the ruling of the court admitting the resolution was erroneous. We think the resolution was not subject to the objections made to it. It was a part of the contract that the work should be done to the satisfaction of the superintendent…