Case Name: HERBERT A. KENNISON v. LAWRENCE H. LUCKER AND ANOTHER
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1919-12-19
Citations: 144 Minn. 469
Docket Number: No. 21,571
Parties: HERBERT A. KENNISON v. LAWRENCE H. LUCKER AND ANOTHER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 469–470

Head Matter:
HERBERT A. KENNISON v. LAWRENCE H. LUCKER AND ANOTHER.
December 19, 1919.
No. 21,571.
Architect’s fee — findings sustained.
Action for architect’s fee for preparation of plans and specifications for a residence. Conflicting evidence. Finding in favor of plaintiff. Held-. The finding wajs not clearly against the evidence. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for .Hennepin, county to recover $640, and foreclose a mechanic’s lien for the same. The facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Fish, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for the- amount demanded, together with an attorney’s fee of $100; that the amount be made a specific lien upon the premises, and that they be sold to satisfy the lien. From an order overruling their motion for amended findings and conclusions of law or for a new trial, defendants appealed.
Affirmed.
Louis A. Hubaehek and Louis H. Joss, for appellants.
Hoke, Kruse & Faegre, for respondent.
Reported in 175 N. W. 1007.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The only question presented in this case is whether the findings of the trial court are clearly and manifestly against the evidence. We are unable to say that they are, and the order appealed from must be affirmed. Plaintiff's claim is that, at the instance and request of defendants, he prepared certain plans and specifications for a residence which they contemplated constructing in the city of Minneapolijs, for which they agreed to pay him an amount equal to four per cent of the cost of construction. The defense in substance was that the plans and specifications were prepared by plain tiff on the express understanding that defendants were to pay nothing therefor unless they were acceptable and were used; that they were not acceptable and, were not ulsed. The court found that the defense thus alleged was not sustained 'by the evidences Our conclusion is that the finding is not clearly against the evidence.
Order affirmed.