Case: ISAAC T. COOK, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM S. EAMES, DECEASED, AND THOMAS C. YOUNG v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Cook v. United States
Decision Date: 1920-03-15
Docket Number: No. 33700
Citation: 55 Ct. Cl. 215
Volume: 55
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: ISAAC T. COOK, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM S. EAMES, DECEASED, AND THOMAS C. YOUNG v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: Graham, Judge, concurs.
Pages: 215–234

Head Matter:
ISAAC T. COOK, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM S. EAMES, DECEASED, AND THOMAS C. YOUNG v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 33700.
Decided March 15, 1920.]
On the Proofs.
Architects’ fees; actual cost of work. — Where architects’ contract provides for the payment to them of 5% “upon the actual cost of the work executed from the drawings and specifications and under their supervision,” and Congress, after'the completion of the work, makes an appropriation to reimburse them for the actual loss sustained in delays and increased cost of construction resulting from the earthquake and fire at San Francisco, the amount so appropriated is part of the construction cost of the work, and the architects are entitled .to their commission thereon.'
Booth, Judge, specially concurring.
DowNet, Judge, and Campbell, Chief Justice, dissenting.
The Reporterstatement of the case:
Mr. William R. Harr for the plaintiffs. Harr Ao Bates were on the briefs.
Mr. Richard P. Whiteley% with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frank Davis, jr., for the defendants.
The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
I. At all times mentioned herein and until March 5, 1915, William Sylvester Eames and Thomas Crane Young were members of a partnership known by the firm name of Eames & Young, with offices in the city of St. Louis, and State of Missouri, engaged in business as architects. Said William Sylvester Eames died on said 5th day of March, 1915, and ori March 8,1915, claimant Isaac T. Cook was by the probate court of the city of St. Louis and State of Missouri duly appointed as the executor of his last will and testament.
II. On July 9, 1903, the United States, acting through its Treasury Department, by letter of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury of that date, submitted to the said firm of Eames & Young a certain program for a competition for the selection of an architect for the erection of a United States customhouse building at San Francisco, California, and invited said firm to submit to the Treasury Department, in conformity with said program and in competition with eleven other architects, a design for such United States customhouse. Pursuant to such invitation Eames & Young submitted to the Treasury Department plans, drawings, specifications, and estimates for the erection of the customhouse at San Francisco, which plans, drawings, specifications, and estimates were approved by the Treasury Department, and Eames & Young were duly selected on the 19th day of December, 1903, as architects for said building by letter of the Acting Secretary of the Treasury of said date.
III. On the 6th day of February, 1904, the defendant, through its Treasury Department, entered into a contract with said firm of Eames & Young, a true copy of which contract and of the letters, Program of Competition and Eegulations of the Treasury Department, referred to therein and expressly made a part thereof, is attached to plaintiff’s petition, marked “ Exhibit B,” and is made a part hereof by reference.
IV. Said firm of Eames & Young, in accordance with said contract, prepared detailed plans, working drawings, designs, specifications, and estimates for said customhouse at San Francisco, and locally supervised the erection thereof and otherwise fully complied with all of the terms and provisions of said contract.
The contract for the erection of said building was let to Thomas Butler at the contract price of $1,194,000. The building was completed January 16,1911, except some “ odds and ends,” such as exterior carving of stone and statuary and buttresses for the main staircase. The architect’s services were finally terminated in February, 1913, and voucher in final settlement was paid on March 8, 1913.
Y. In said program for competition, made a part of the contract between the parties as aforesaid, the Treasury Department required that provision be made by the architects for the location in said customhouse building of a subtreas-ury, by the following provision of said program:
SUBTKEASTJRY.
Assistant treasurer_ 400 sq. ft.
Chief clerk_ 320 sq. ft.
Business office with 60-ft. counter- 4, 000 sq. ft.
Daily working vault in office- 360 sq. ft.
Coin storage vaults_ 2, 000 sq. ft.
“ These vaults, if not on the same floor with subtreasury, should have connection with same by private staircase and should be situated conveniently for receipt and shipment of coin by private entrance.”
Pursuant to said requirement, said firm of Eames & Young, in their competitive design which was accepted and approved by the defendant, and in the detached plans, working drawings, designs, and specifications which they prepared for said customhouse subsequent to the execution of said contract and which were also accepted and approved by defendant provided for the space called for by said program and said contract to be used as such subtreasury.
Work on the construction of the building as so designed was begun the latter part of August, 1905.
About one year later, to wit, on August 18,1906, the Treasury Department changed its intention with respect to providing space for a subtreasury in said customhouse building and determined to erect a separate building in 'San Francisco for such subtreasury, and the department thereupon in writing required the said firm of Eames & Young, as such architects, to so change the plans, drawings, specifications, etc., which it had theretofore approved for said customhouse building as to eliminate therefrom the said provisions for said subtreasury.
Said changes involved additional and extra work not required for the completion of the building according to the plans, designs, specifications, and drawings accepted by the defendant and not required to insure its proper construction and completion within the limit of its cost as provided in said contract.
Said firm of Eames & Young, complying with said requirement, did so change said plans, designs, specifications, etc., as to eliminate the space theretofore provided for such subtreasury, which changes were approved by the defendant. In so doing the said firm of Eames & Young performed extra work of the reasonable value of $1,200.
YI. The regulations of the Treasury Department expressly made a part of the contract between the parties provided : t
“22. The services of the architect will not be required or paid for in connection with the supply of furniture, gas, or electric fixtures, or electric-light plants, unless separately ordered by the department.
“15. The architect to whom the commission is awarded shall revise his competitive drawings to meet the further requirements of the Secretary of the Treasury, and upon the basis of these revised preliminary drawings shall prepare full detailed working drawings and specifications for said building; and shall thereinafter, from time to time, make such changes in the plans, drawings, and specifications as may be directed by the Secretary of the Treasury, for which just compensation shall be allowed; but no changes in the plans, drawings, and specifications shall be made without written authority from the Secretary of the Treasury.”
The Program of Competition stated the intention of the Government to put the heating apparatus in the adjoining appraiser’s warehouse building.
The contract between the parties expressly excluded, among other things, “ furniture, electric plant, gas or electric fixtures” from consideration in computing the architect’s fee.
Plaintiffs were required under their contract to provide for all the apparatus for heat and light situated in the customs building, exclusive of gas and electric fixtures, but were directed to stop their work at the alley separating the customhouse from the appraiser’s warehouse building.
Plaintiffs had personal conversations with the Supervising Architect in Washington, in which he explained verbally that this building across the alley contained boilers and space that they expected to utilize for the purpose of heating the customs building, and the Treasury Department’s intention was to make its own electricity, and planned to connect up with the work of the customs building. But the Supervising Architect said that that was not a part of the architect’s contract, and he did not know whether they would be asked to do it or not; but that was in the future. All the architects had to do was to provide the necessary apparatus up to that point; that the Treasury Department would take care of the rest.
After the execution of the said contract between the parties and subsequent to the approval of the architect’s plans, specifications, and drawings, and while the execution of the work was in progress plaintiffs received the following letter from the Supervising Architect of the Treasury:
“ TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
“ Oeeice Supervising Architect,
“May 1,1908.
“ Referred to the Messrs. Eames & Young, Archt’s, for his guidance and files. J. K. Taylor, Supervising Architect.
“The Superintendent oe Construction,
“ U. S. Customhouse, San Francisco, Cal.
“ Sir : Referring to your letter of the 23rd ultimo relative to plan and specifications for mechanical equipment of the building for which you are superintendent, you are advised that an act of Congress making appropriations for sundry-civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30,-1907, and for other purposes, states:
“ ‘ The appropriations heretofore made or which may hereafter be made for the construction of the customhouse building at San Francisco, Cal., are hereby made available for installing in the appraisers’ stores building adjacent thereto the necessary machinery, appliances, and fixtures for supplying heat, light, or power to the customhouse building, including all necessary incidental changes in the present heating and power plant, appliances, and fixtures in the appraisers’ stores building.’
“ It is therefore the province of the architects, Messrs. Eames & Young, to prepare the drawings and specifications for that part of the mechanical equipment of the U. S. customhouse which is to be located in the basement of the U. S. appraisers’ stores, as well as for any modifications in the mechanical equipment of the latter building which are incident thereto.
“ The matter of dampness in basement of U. S. appraisers’ stores referred to in your letter should be taken up with the architects, to whom a copy of this letter will be sent.
“ Respectfully,
“ SueervisiNG Architect.”
Acting upon these instructions, plaintiffs employed an engineer at San Francisco, upon the recommendation of the Government, to draw up the necessary plans and specifications for the reconstruction of the boiler .plant on the old appraisers’ stores building so as to enable it to supply heat, light, and power to the new customhouse building. This work required a great many changes in the appraisers’ stores building itself besides in the actual power plant. In the instructions received by plaintiffs as to this work, there was no limitation placed upon the cost of the power plant. It was plaintiffs’ understanding that an independent appropriation was to be made for this work, and that the work had no thing, to do with the appropriation for the customhouse at thai time.
Plaintiffs paid the 'San Francisco engineer $1,200 for drawing up said plans and specifications. Said plans and specifications were rejected by the Treasury Department as not complying with Government practices.
Plaintiffs then prepared new plans and specifications themselves, in so doing complying with certain changes re quested by the Government which increased the cost of the proposed power plant.
Plaintiffs then submitted their completed plans and specifications for this power plant to the Treasury Department; whereupon the latter called for an estimate of cost, which plaintiffs gave, the same being fixed by them at $109,800. .
Subsequent to the submission of said estimate of cost and about nine months thereafter, plaintiffs’ said new plans and specifications for the power plant were approved by the Treasury Department.
After the approval of the plans and specifications plaintiffs took proposals for the work, the cost aggregate proposed being $109,941.
Thereafter the Treasury Department decided to abandon the proposed power plant entirely and instructed plaintiffs to draw up new plans leaving out the power plant (which was intended to manufacture the electricity for the building), as the department had concluded to buy the electric current from the city company and thus reduce the cost of the building.
This change of plan on the part of the Treasury Department rendered the plans and specifications prepared by plaintiffs for the installation of the power plant in the old appraisers’ stores building useless.
The customary charge by architects and builders of the country for such drawings and specifications and the work necessary to the letting of the contracts, such as was done by claimants in this instance, is two and a half (2J) per cent of the cost of the work.
It was not until the receipt of a letter from the Supervising Architect of the Treasury Department dated January 29, 1910, that plaintiffs were advised that the work in respect to the power plant would have to be brought within the limit of the appropriation for the new customhouse building.
This was about a year after the plans had been approved and they had submitted their estimate of cost for such work.
Under date of April 21, 1910, plaintiffs wrote the Supervising Architect of the Treasury requesting to be advised whether they would be allowed the usual commission of two and a half (2-J) per cent on the sum of $109,937 on account of the said rejected work in connection with the proposed power plant in the appraisers’ building, but their request was denied.
The reasonable value of the work so performed is the sum of $2,725.
VII. The architects’ fee, as finally calculated by the Treasury Department, was based upon the construction cost of the customs house as shown upon the boobs of the Supervising Architect’s Office, Treasury Department, exclusive of the sum of $101,907.66, also shown upon the books of the Supervising Architect’s Office. The books in the Supervising Architect’s Office contained an account with the building contractor in usual form in which the first item states the contract price. Following are items of additions because of authorized changes and of deductions and payments which are totaled and balanced at $1,222,206, the amount found to have accrued to the contractor under the contract. Following this account are further entries the first of which, under date of May 27, 1908, states the authorization under the act hereinafter quoted, with a reference to said act, $250,000, as against which there are entered the payments made to the contractor amounting to said sum of $101,907.66. Said last-named payments were made pursuant _ to the sundry civil appropriation act of Congress of May 27,1908, which provided:
“San Francisco, California, customhouse: The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, upon the completion of the customhouse in the city of San Francisco, California, to pay to Thomas Butler, the contractor for the construction of said building, in addition to the contract price therefor, such sum as may be equitable and just to reimburse said contractor for any loss actually sustained in consequence of the earthquake and great fire of April, nineteen hundred and six, not exceeding the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars: Provided, That the amount allowed said Thomas Butler shall not be sufficient to enable him to make any profit out of the making and execution of said contract.”
The report of the committee appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust said claim of Thomas Butler shows that said additional payment covered only the actual increase cost to the contractor of constructing said building due to the earthquake and fire of 1906, exclusive of any profits to the contractor. Said report also shows that said increased cost was due to the increased cost of labor and material caused by the earthquake and to the delay caused thereby in completing the building.
Owing to said earthquake and fire at San Francisco in 1906, there was a delay of about three years in the completion of the customs house and it was necessary for the architects, under their contract, to keep a superintendent of construction on the building for that further length of time at a cost of about $6,700; also during this period and as a result of the delay the office and certain contingent expenses of the architect went on.
The architects were paid 5 per cent on $1,366,215.37, amounting to $68,310.77, all of which except $39.88 had been paid before final settlement, that sum being paid March 8, 1913, upon a voucher certified by T.. E. Young, a member of the firm, for Eames & Young as correct and just. The above amount upon which they were paid commission was the amount found to have accrued to Contractor Butler under the contract, and certain other amounts paid to other contractors for parts of the work not included in Butler’s contract but did not include said sum of $101,907.66.
Five per cent of $101,907.66 amounts to the sum of $5,095.38.
VIII. At the instance of Eames and Young there was introduced in the House of Bepresentatives of the United States on the 5th day of July, 1913, H. It. 6654, entitled “A bill for the relief of William S. Eames and Thomas C. Young.” Said bill provided for the payment by the Secretary of the Treasury to said Eames and Young of the sum of $21,244.86—
“ for the reimbursement of said William S. Eames and Thomas C. Young for preparing extra plans and specifications for a power plant and for money paid by them in salaries and office expenses and for personal services during the construction of said building, the same being an extraordinary expense occasioned by the earthquake and fire in San Francisco, Calif., in April, 1906, in that the earthquake and the additional work made necessary by it made necessary a much more protracted employment of said superintendents and office force and greater personal effort than would have been necessary if the work had proceeded to completion under normal conditions and without the intervention of the earthquake.”
Said bill was referred to the Committee on Claims, a subcommittee was appointed to consider the same and a hearing was had by said subcommittee before which Thomas C. Young appeared and testified. Said Eames and Young also filed with said subcommittee a printed brief in which, among other things, they made claim for the amounts herein sued for and which brief concluded as follows:
“ In conclusion, said architects contend that since the bulk of their' damages resulted from an act of God, for which they were in no way responsible, and which they could not foresee, Congress should, as a matter of equity and justice, relieve them. And that, inasmuch as Congress has relieved the said Thomas Butler for damages resulting from the same cause, it can not with fairness reject their claims.
“ Said architects further contend that their claim for $18,700 on account of the delay occasioned by the earthquake and fire, their claim for $1,200 on account of the change in the intention of the Treasury Department regarding a sub-treasury, their claim for $2,544.86 on account of the money actually expended in the preparation of drawings and specifications for an electric or power plant which the Government rejected after bids had been received, and their claim for $5,095.38, constituting 5 per cent upon the additional sum paid to Thomas Butler, are just and reasonable claims and that Congress should give them relief in the total sum of $27,540.24.”
On June 8, 1914, the Committee on Claims reported the bill with amendments, said amended bill providing for the payment to said Eames and Young of $2,544.86 “for the reimbursement of said William S. Eames and Thomas C. Young for actual expenses incurred by them in preparing extra plans and specifications for a power plant for said building.” Said amended bill was committed to the Committee of the Whole House; but no action had been had thereon when the1 Sixty-third Congress expired.
On June 4, 1916, there was introduced in the House of Representatives of the United States H. R. 7155, entitled “A bill for the relief of William S. Eames and Thomas C. Young,” providing for the payment to them by the Secretary of the Treasury of the sum of $17,344.20 for the same assigned reasons as were stated in H. E. 6654, with the addition thereto of the following language:
“And to cover a 5 per cent commission on the sum of $101,907.66, paid by the Secretary of the Treasury, under authority of law, to Thomas Butler, contractor for said building, on account of damages sustained by him on account of such earthquake and fire.”
On May 11, 1916, there was introduced in the House of Eepresentatives a resolution referring said last-mentioned bill with the accompanying papers to the Court of Claims for the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Said resolution was pending on the calendar of the House when this action was commenced on the 12th day of January, 1917.
Appealed.

Opinion:
Hat, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a suit brought by Isaac T. Cook, executor of the estate of William S. Eames, deceased, and Thomas' C. Young, the said Eames and Young having been partners, who, at the time of the making of the contract hereinafter mentioned, were partners, engaged in business as architects in the city of St. Louis in the State of Missouri. On July 9, 1903, the United States submitted to Eames & Young a a certain program for a competition for the selection of an architect for the erection of a customhouse building at San Francisco, Calif., and invited said firm to submit a design and estimates for the erection of said building, which were approved by the Treasury Department, and tire said firm was selected on December 19, 1903, as architects for said building. On February 6, 1904, the defendants entered into a contract with said firm. The plaintiffs performed extra work in eliminating from the original plans and specifications prepared by the plaintiffs and approved by the Treasury Department space for a subtreasury in said customhouse which was called for in the original program for competition by the Government and made part of the contract. For this extra work the defendants refused to pay. It was reasonably worth the sum- of $1,200.
The said firm prepared plans and specifications for the. installation of the power plant in the old appraiser's stores building, which was work not included under the contract, .and the architects were not required to do it; it was work separately ordered by the department, and the reasonable value of the work so performed is the sum of $2,725. The third item of the claim is for the unpaid commission on the sum of $101,907.66, paid to Thomas Butler, the contractor for the construction of the building, due to the great earthquake and fire in San Francisco on April 18, 1906.
As to the first two items of this claim the defendants concede that they should be paid. The defendants resist the payment of the commission on the sum of $101,907.66, which was paid to Thomas Butler under the authority of a provision in the sundry civil appropriation act approved May 27, 1908, 35 Stat., 318. This provision is as follows:
" The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, upon completion of the customhouse of San Francisco, California, to pay to Thomas Butler, the contractor for the construction of said building, in addition to the contract price thereof, such sum as may be equitable and just to reimburse said contractor for any loss actually sustained in consequence of the earthquake and great fire of April, 1906, not exceeding the sum of $250,000. Providing that the amount allowed said Thomas Butler shall not be sufficient to enable him to make any profit out of the making and executing of said contract."
The report of the committee appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust the claim of the contractor under the provisions of the statute above quoted shows that the contractor was entitled to receive the sum of $101,907.66, and that this additional payment covered only the actual increased cost to the contractor of constructing said building due to the earthquake and fire of 1906, exclusive of any profits to the contractor.
The contract of the defendants with the architects provided :
"And the party of the first part covenants and agrees to pay, or cause to be paid, unto the party of the second part, or to the heirs, executors, or administrators of the party of the second part, a fee computed at the rate of five per centum upon the actual cost of the work executed from the drawings and specifications and under their supervision, as shown upon the books of the Supervising Architect's Office, by the net amounts of contracts awarded and proposals accepted for additions and deductions, but not including the cost of the site, or furniture, electric plant, gas or electric fixtures, mural paintings, architects' fee, or the contingent expenses incident to the construction of said building set apart by the party of the first part.
"And the party of the first part covenants and agrees that payments will be made in the following manner, viz: One-fifth of the fee when the preliminary drawings are completed and approved in the manner provided in said regulations; three-tenths of the fee when the general working drawings and specifications are completed and copies thereof delivered to the Supervising Architect; and the balance of the fee monthly upon the basis of payments for work performed and in place as of record upon the books of the Supervising Architect's Office, or as ascertained to be due to the several contractors who execute such work: Provided, That until the actual cost of the work executed from the architect's drawings and specifications and under their supervision can be determined, the monthly payments on account of the fee shall be computed upon the proposed cost of said building as estimated by the party of the second part, viz, one million two hundred seventy-seven thousand six hundred ($1,277,600) dollars, or as may be readjusted from time to time; and upon the completion of the building the entire fee shall be finally based upon and computed on the actual construction cost of the work executed from the architect's drawings and specifications and under their supervision, as shown upon the books of the Supervising Architect's Office, exclusive of the cost of the items herein-before excepted."
It will be observed that this contract provides " upon the completion of the building the entire fee shall be finally based upon and computed on the actual construction cost of the work executed from the architect's drawings and specifications and under their supervision, as shown upon the books of the Supervising Architect's Office, exclusive of the cost of the items hereinbefore excepted." The $101,907.66 upon which the plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to commission is a part of the construction cost of the work executed' from the architect's drawings and specifications, and the sum aforesaid was shown upon the books of the Supervising Architect's Office. Under the contract they are entitled to be paid their commission on this sum.
Judgment will be entered for the plaintiffs in the sum of $9,020.38, as shown by Findings V, VI, and VII.
Graham, Judge, concurs.