Court Opinion

ID: 9830947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:39:03.545972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.546374
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[4] Appellant assails our holding to the effect that the uncontradicted evidence shows that H. Snaman employed appellee to draw the plans for the hotel, citing the evidence of Joe Snaman, wherein he states, in effect, that appellee would draw the plans and specifications, and if the matter did not go through he would not charge anything for same. Notwithstanding this, however, the uncontradicted evidence, shows that appellant admitted that his brother Harry had a half interest in the building, and that Harry ran the business when appellant was away, and that appellant ran it when his brother was away; and appellee testified, without contradiction in this connection, that he had a- conversation with Harry Snaman relative to the cost of the plans, and informed him that the regular fee therefor would be 5 per cent, of the amount of the cost of the improvements, “which I then told him would probably be from $25,000 to $30,000, upon which he replied to go ahead and prepare the plans; that after this Harry was frequently at the office to see about it and how the plans were getting along, giving instructions and directions and suggesting changes therein.”
Even if we were to concede, however, that appellant’s contention in this respect is correct, there is ample evidence under other phases of the case to justify the affirmance of the judgment. After a full and thorough investigation of the record, in the light of appellant’s motion for a rehearing, we have concluded that there is no merit in same, and that it should he overruled; and it is so ordered.
Motion overruled.