Stephen v. Camden & Philadelphia Soap Co.

1. . Where the plaintiff, an architect, had prepared plans for the erection of a building under a written contract with defendant, providing compensation on a fixed percentage of its cost (the plaintiff also contracting to supervise the work to be done upon the building for such percentage), and subsequently the defendant, without right, abandoned the undertaking so that supervision became impossible — Held, that the plaintiff might recover of defendant the reasonable value of his services performed before such abandonment. 2. An implied condition was inferable from the contract and circumstances that if, by reason of the happening of a certain event, such as the abandonment by defendant of any erection, it became impossible for plaintiff to perform the entire work stipulated for, yet he could recover, upon an implied assumpsit, for such portion of the work as had been properly done by him.

On error to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff declared in contract upon the common counts in assumpsit, for value of work done and materials provided by plaintiff at the defendant’s request, with notice specifying that .the work was done by him as an architect in the preparation of plans and specifications for the construction of a building, proposed to be erected by the defendant. At the jury trial of the cause before the Supreme Court Circuit the plaintiff offered in evidence certain letters of a correspondence between the parties, containing his contract of employment with defendant, the material portions of which are as follows, viz.: On May 12th, 1903, the plaintiff wrote to defendant: * * * “Mr. Jessup has brought up the tracing of the survey of your newly-acquired property, and I am making you two blue-print copies of the same for your own use. With your permission, I will now proceed with the plans, &c., but I thought you would like to have my verbal agreement with your Mr. Maurice Hirst in writing, so I hereby agree to render compíete architectural services, including supervision and all the work usually done by ah architect, for the sum of four per cent, on the cost of the work (or two and one-half per cent, for the plans and specifications). As this is a special price, I wish you to please do not let this get out in the public, as I am getting five per cent, for similar work. The way I get over it, I make you present of the details, said commission to be either paid in installments of four per cent, of the amount paid to the contractor as the work progresses, or as per enclosed schedule of the American Institute of Architects. Hoping to receive a written acceptance of the above, and thanking you in advance for the same, I am,” &c. To which, on May 19th, 1903, the defendant (by its president) responded, viz.: “In replying to yours of the 12th inst., will respectfully say that your proposition to go ahead with the plans has been considered, but owing to the very unsettled condition of the labor market throughout the entire country, we do not feel disposed to go ahead with the erection of the building until the labor disturbance becomes more settled, so that we will have the assurance that when we start the building we will be able to finish it without interruption on account of the labor trouble, and as per our telephone conversation with you, if you desire to go ahead with the plans and take chances of the starting of the building being delayed, and in waiting for our settlement with you until such time as the building is well started, and, as you suggested, at which time we can certainly agree on some method of settling as the building progresses, but the final statement not to be made until the building is finished and turned over to us, when the final payment will be made for your services, or will take the risk and wait until building is finished. If this meets with your views, it will be entirely satisfactory to us to have you go ahead with the plans just as soon as you feel disposed to do so.” On May 20th, 1903, the plaintiff replied: “In answer to your esteemed favor of the 19th inst., will state that I have decided to proceed with my portion of the work, and that I accept your proposition to take the chances of the starting of the building being delayed on account of the labor trouble, provided you will pay me in installments as asked for in my former letter of the 12th of May, 1903. This morning I left drawing at the office of the P. R. R. engineer to determine about siding, and expect answer to-morrow.” A year thereafter, on June 20th, 1904, and after the services were rendered, as hereafter stated, the plaintiff wrote defendant as follows: “I have never received word officially from you whether you intend to build your proposed factory which I made plans and specifications for. The last time I saw Mr. Maurice Hirst he said you were contemplating altering another building. Will you please let me know by letter what you intend to do in the matter, as you are aware that the above work was done under considerable expense to me and in good faith that the building would be erected, I feel as though I ought to receive some compensation for my labors. I have not bothered you before, awaiting your decision and to allow you time to come to definite conclusions.” To this letter the defendant, on June 22d, 1904, replied, viz.: “Yours of the 20th inst. received. You are certainly entitled to consideration in answering your question. We will either erect our buildings or will purchase one already erected. In either case you will be taken care of. If in purchasing a building erected, we will arrange with you for your compensation. You now understand, with the present condition of the times and the slow, dull business, we were justified in not going ahead with the new buildings.” The plaintiff established in evidence at the trial that he had, between April 14th and November 19th, 1903, performed certain services, contemplated by the above-quoted letters, as an architect, in the preparation of plans and specifications (together with some twenty-two blue-print copies) for the erection of a group of buildings (to be built for the defendant on its triangular plot of ground in Camden) adapted to the manufacture of soap, starch, &c.; that the defendant’s president, as well as two of its other officers and directors, had frequently during this period visited his office and inspected his work, giving him special instructions and directions therein; that about December 6th, 1905, and after he had waited more than two years for the building to be started by defendant, it had notified him, through its president and directors, “that the building was not going to be put up,” and that the company had “finally abandoned the idea of erecting the building.” The fact of this notification of abandonment was not disputed by the defendant, but was testified to by the president of the company, one of the witnesses for the defence, although the date of such notification was not stated by him. Presumably, therefore, the date fixed by the plaintiff was correct. This suit was begun in June, 1906. The defendant received from the plaintiff the plans at an unspecified date, but before suit was commenced. The plaintiff also produced evidence of the prices paid by him for the materials used in his work, and of the time in hours devoted to the work, and of the reasonable prices of an architect’s services by the hour. The letters were admitted in evidence without objection. It appeared by the testimony of the defendant’s president that he was authorized by the defendant corporation to make the agreement stated in the letters, though no resolution or action of the board of directors, as such, upon the subject was made to appear.