Page images
PDF
EPUB

that there is any evidence of any loss of rents. My impression is the other way, that there is no such evidence; but it is for you, entirely, to pass upon the other question embraced in this; whether the buildings did not fully answer the object intended, that is for you to determine under the evidence.

"That as to the charge for preparing the plans respecting the Thirty-seventh Street lots, if the jury believe that the defendant did authorize the preparation of said plans, the plaintiff is entitled to recover his fees for such services." This assumes that he rendered the services at her request, or for her advantage.

"That the fees for preparing such plans, if payable at all, are two and a-half per cent on the value of the contemplated building." That is correct. That is correct. I suppose you desire to add the three-fourths of one per cent; you do not say anything about that.

Mr. Peckham: We do not desire to.

The Court: I charge you that the fees, if payable at all, are two and a half per cent upon the contemplated cost of the building. There seems to be no controversy that those are the rates that architects are entitled to recover in cases of this character.

A Juror: I would ask if that does not cover working plans?

The Court: Yes. The next one is:

"That whether the defendant did or did not own, or had or had not elected to take the Thirty-seventh Street lots is not decisive of plaintiff's right to recover or of the defendant's liability to pay. If the defendant ordered the plans to be drawn it was not for the plaintiff to inquire whether or not the defendant had any interest in the ground.

"That the defendant not having paid any of the bills for extras, cannot claim any damages in respect of such extras." Whether she has paid or not for extras is not the question. If she is liable to pay that is enough.

"That from any damages to which the defendant may have shown herself to be entitled, is to be deducted the value of the extra work for which she has not paid." That I decline to charge in that form. I charge this:

"That Mrs. Stevens is chargeable with the knowledge of the standard and regular rates of architects' fees as asked for by Mr. Gilman on the Thirty-seventh Street hotel, because it appears that she had been charged the same rates by Mr. Gilman in several previous jobs." So much, gentlemen, for the request of the plaintiff.

Mr. Peckham: I ask your honor to charge, that the details technically so called, are not claimed or called for in the charge of two and a-half per cent. One per cent additional is allowed on the schedule for the technical details, which the juror calls the working drawings.

The Court: I charge that.

Mr. Townshend excepts to those parts of the charge plaintiff's requests are not charged.

Defendant's counsel accepts the charge itself but excepts separately to the charge, so far as it concerns the request of the plaintiff on various subjects. Verdict for the plaintiff $3,000.

OTTO L. SPANNHAKE, INC., v. MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY,

(159 App. Div. (N. Y.) 727.)

SCOTT, J. 728: The defendant Mountain Construction Company made a contract with plaintiff, an architect, to draw plans for and superintend the construction of certain houses in the City of New York. The plaintiff filed a lien for the value of his services both for drawing plans and for superintendence. This action is to foreclose that lien. The City Court awarded judgment to plaintiff for both classes of service. This judgment was modified by the Appellate Term by striking out so much

of the recovery as represented the value of the plans, allowing plaintiff to recover only for superintendence. In this, as we think, the Appellate Term erred. The general rule to be deduced from the adjudicated cases is that while an architect is not entitled to a mechanic's lien for drawing plans alone, yet when he both draws plans and superintends construction he is entitled to a lien for the value of both plans and superintendence. In Stryker v. Cassidy (76 N. Y. 50, 53) the Court of Appeals said: "An architect who makes the plans and supervises the erection of a building is within the words and reason of the law." The rule above stated is well illustrated by Rinn v. Electric Power Company (3 App. Div. 305). In that case the architect had drawn plans for a large building, of which, however, only one-half had been erected under his superintendence. He was allowed a lien, in addition to his fees for superintendence, for one-half of the value of the plans which he had prepared for the whole building, the Court remarking that an architect cannot have a lien for making plans alone, but when he makes the plans and supervises the construction "it is the part the architect takes during the construction that draws his services within the lien law." In Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Brooklyn Heights Realty Co. (111 App. Div. 358) the plaintiff was denied a lien for preparing plans because no building was erected. In the present case the plaintiff not only drew plans but superintended the construction, as was found by the City Court, and virtually affirmed by the Appellate Term, which allowed a recovery for the value of his services for supervision. There is no force in the suggestion that plaintiff should have filed a separate lien on each building. (Woolf v. Schaefer, 103 App. Div. 567.)

The determination of the Appellate Term must be reversed and the judgment of the City Court affirmed, with costs to appellant in this court and at the Appellate Term.

INGRAHAM, P. J., CLARKE, DOWLING and HOTCHKISS, J. J., concurred.

Determination reversed and judgment of City Court affirmed, with costs to appellant in this court and at the Appellate Term. Order to be settled on notice.

APPENDIX B

THE STANDARD DOCUMENTS OF

THE AMERICAN

INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS

(INCLUDING VARIOUS SUPPLEMENTAL FORMS AND SUGGESTIONS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE)

(Published by special permission and courtesy of the American Institute of Architects.)

NOTE. This Form of Agreement is approved by the American Institute of Architects when used with the General Conditions of the Contract issued by the Institute.

THE STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CONTRACTOR AND OWNER

ISSUED BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
This form has been approved by the National Association of Builders'
Exchanges, The National Association of Master Plumbers,
and the National Association of Master Steam

and Hot Water Fitters.

Second Edition, Copyright 1915 by the American Institute of Architects, The Octagon, Washington, D. C.

This Form is to be used only with the Standard General Conditions of the Contract.

THIS AGREEMENT made the...

day of.......in the year Nineteen Hundred and.... by and between..

hereinafter called the Contractor, and...

.hereinafter called the Owner, WITNESSETH, that the Contractor and the Owner for the

considerations hereinafter named agree as follows: Article 1. The Contractor agrees to provide all the materials and to perform all the work shone on the Draw

« PreviousContinue »