Case Name: William Stoke et al., Plffs. in Err., v. David G. McCullough
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1885-10-05
Citations: 1 Sadler 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Stoke et al., Plffs. in Err., v. David G. McCullough.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; being those cases not designated to be reportedÉ
Volume: 1
Pages: 78–79

Head Matter:
William Stoke et al., Plffs. in Err., v. David G. McCullough.
The architect of a building may be named by the owner as arbitrator ora the owner’s part to value work done by a contractor, under an agreement, for a valuation by “competent” persons.
(Decided October 5, 1885.)
Error to the Common Pleas of Blair County.
Affirmed.
Stoke & Company erected a building for McCullough, under a contract which provided that extra work should be valued by two-“competent” persons, etc. Extra work was done, and the parties, named arbitrators, who made an award; the arbitrator named by McCullough, the owner of the building, being Marshall, who-had been employed as architect to superintend the work. Stoke- & Company, being dissatisfied with the amount awarded, filed a mechanics’ lien for the sum they claimed. On the trial a>. principal question was whether the award was a valid defense.
Alexander & Herr for plaintiffs in error.
A. V. Dwely for appellee.
Note. — The lien in this ease was stricken off by the lower court, and subsequently reinstated on appeal. -Stoke v. McCullough, 107 Pa. 39.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
Marshall had no pecuniary interest in the work. The fact that he had been in the employment of one of the parties as-superintendent of the work did not legally disqualify him from-acting as- an arbitrator. When the agreement permits each-party to select an arbitrator, it may fairly be assumed that each-will select a person who is friendly towards him. The "true-value" was to be ascertained by "competent persons." The per sons who valued the work are not shown to have been incompetent. The award is regular on .its face, and it is found that they acted within their 'jurisdiction and according to the powers submitted to them.
Judgment affirmed.