Case ID: pa-super_85/html/0236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Linn, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DeArmond et al., Appellants, v. Tappan.
    
      Building contracts — Architects’ commissions — Amount due — Issue of fact — Evidence—Sufficiency.
    In an action of assumpsit to recover architects’ commissions, a judgment in favor of defendant will be affirmed, where there was an issue of fact as to the circumstances under which the commission was to be paid, and there was sufficient evidence to support the finding in favor of the defendant.
    Argued December 9, 1924.
    Appeal, No. 292, Oct. T., 1924, by plaintiff, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, July T., 1923, No. 261, in favor of defendant in the case of Clarence DeArmond, Duffield Ashmead, Jr., George Howard Bickley, trading as De-Armond, Ashmead & Bickley, v. Paul Tappan.
    Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    
      February 27, 1925:
    Assumpsit to recover architects’ commissions. Before Cassidy, J., without a jury.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
    The court found in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the decree of the court.
    
      Lemuel B. Schofield, for appellant.
    
      Claude C. Smith, of Duane, Morris & Heckacher, for appellee.
   Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This appeal is by architects suing for services at 4% of a contractor’s bid of some $31,000 for the erection of a house according to plans said to have been ordered of them. Defendant averred in substance that he was not to pay unless the house could be built for $24,000, including all architects’ charges. Jury trial was waived. Each side presented evidence to support its contentions. Defendant declined to accept the plans and the bid, and abandoned the idea of building because the cost of the house would exceed $24,000. Plaintiffs admitted they could not get a bid as low as $24,000. The court found the obligation to be as stated by defendant and not as stated by plaintiffs, and entered judgment accordingly, and the only complaint now is that the court so found. The record contains ample evidence to support the finding ; it has the effect of the verdict of a jury, and we may not disturb it.

Judgment affirmed.