Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1922-01-18

account of the relationship created by
the contract of Feb. q, 1919, would bene-
| fit by any increase in the amount of
school construction work carried on by
the School City and the said defendant,
l.. A Snider. as agent of the School city,
and as a member of the firm of Snider &
| Rotz, would benefit by any increase in
the amount of construction work carried
On.
THAT said contract between Defendant
| Snider and the Board of School Commits
| sioners of the city of Indianapolis, In,
the second day of March, 1920, on ac-
| count of said conflict of interests was
| Illegal against public policy and void
THAT this defendant has been paid
| for services rendered pursuant to the
| provisions Of said illegal and void con
| tract the sum of S13, 40 which sum he
still retains for his own use.
+ THAT the plaintiff before the COM
mencement of this action demanded of
the defendant. L. A Snider the repay
ment and return of said sum received by
him by virtue of said contract, which
defendant has refused, and has not either
before or since said demand paid the
same or any part thereof.
THAT said amount paid to the de
PENDANT as aforesaid, amounting to $13,
72842, is now due and unpaid"
HOW CONTRACT
BECAME INVALID.
The third paragraph takes up the ar
gument that the Snider & Rotz contract
became invalid with the signing of the
contract with Snider to act as building
advisor. 1t Is stated:
THAT said contract Of March 2, 1920,
made it possible for defendant L. A.
Suider. as professional advisor, to pass
on the bills of Snider & Rotz for services
performed under the contract of Feb. n,
1919, consulting engineers, and ere
ated a conflict Of interests between the
services rendered by said Snider in such
dual capacity. That said defendant
Snider, as professional advisor, did pass
upon and approve all bills relating to
building construction, including the in
voices and statements of Sntder & Rotz,
as consulting engineers, and l.. A. Snider,
as building advisor.
That, on account of the conflict in
interests resulting from the said con-
tracts said defendants, Snider & ROtz,
were disqualified to prepare plans and
specifications, or to act as consulting
engineers after March .. 1920. the date Of
the contract with defendant, L. A. Snider.
appointing him building advisor and
after said date said contract of Feb. u,
1919 was of no effect, Illegal and void.
ILLEGAL FEES
STILL RETAINED"
THAT these defendants have been paid
for services rendered since March ., 1920,
pursuant to the provisions of said il
legal and void contract the sum of
S37, 1851. which sum they still retain
for their own use.
THAT the plaintiff, before the com
mencement of this action, demanded of
the defendants the repayment and return
of said sum received by them by virtue
of said contract, which defendants have
refused, and have not, either before or
since said demand, paid the same or any
part thereof.
THAT said amount paid to the defend
ants as aforesaid amounting to $37,-
1851 is now due and unpaid"
The fourth paragraph deals with the
payment of S1,431 for the alleged I'M
satisfactory plans for the first unit of
Arsenal Technical High School. II reads !:
Plaintiff AYERS that in the year 1919
and during the period covered by said
contract the defendants prepared plans
and specifications for certain work in