Tenney

This is an action on a contract for an unpaid balance alleged to be due to the appel *609 lee, who will hereinafter he referred to as the plaintiff, by the appellant, who will hereinafter he referred to as the defendant.

The contract was entered into by the plaintiff and defendant on the 25th day of April, 1928, for the completion of a section of the Pine-Long Valley, Coconino National Forest Highway, Coconino county, Ariz. The question involved is the proper interpretation of tliis contract. It appears that Grey & Little, a copartnership of Yuma, Ariz., had entered into a contract with the Secretary of Agriculture, acting on behalf of the government of the United States, for the above-mentioned roadwork, and that the defendant executed a surety bond on their behalf for the faithful performance of their contract. Grey & Little, having defaulted in the performance of their contract, the defendant undertook to complete the work. After doing a portion of the uncompleted work, it entered into negotiations with the plaintiff to undertake the performance of the work not yet done, and, in pursuance of these negotiations, the contract herein sued upon was executed. The Grey & Little…