Tilley v. County of Cook
| Decision Date | 01 October 1880 |
| Citation | 103 U.S. 155,26 L.Ed. 374 |
| Parties | TILLEY v. COUNTY OF COOK |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Melville W. Fuller, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. William C. Goudy and Mr. Consider H. Willett, contra.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Tilley against the County of Cook and the City of Chicago. The declaration consists of the common counts for work and labor done, goods sold and delivered, money lent and advanced, and upon account stated.
The following is a copy of the account sued on, which was appended to the declaration:——
'The COUNTY OF COOK and the CITY OF CHICAGO to THOMAS TILLEY, Dr.
'For services as architect in preparing plans, drawings, specifications, diagrams, estimates, and details for the new court-house and city hall, and superintendence of erecting the same, five per cent on $2,909,629, the estimated cost of the building, the plan being that known as 'Eureka' . . . $145,481 45'
The defendants pleaded the general issue.
By provision of the Constitution and laws of the State of Illinois, the county affairs of Cook County are managed by a board of commissioners of fifteen persons. Ill. Const. 1870, art. 10, sect. 7. The affairs of the city are controlled by the common council. Private Laws of Illinois, 1863, p. 40.
The County of Cook was the owner of a block of ground in the city of Chicago, known as the court-house square, on which it was proposed to erect a building to be used as a city hall and county court-house, in which the business of the city and county might be conducted.
On July 10, the board of county commissioners, and on July 15, 1872, the common council, adopted, each for itself, the following resolution:——
'Resolved, That it is the sense of the joint meeting that they recommend to the common council of the city of Chicago and the board of commissioners of Cook County that the city of Chicago and the county of Cook will authorize the building committees of the several boards to offer a prize of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the best plan, two thousand dollars ($2,000) for the second, and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the third best plan for a court-house and city hall, to be erected jointly by the county of Cook and the city of Chicago, upon the public square in the city of Chicago, the said plans to be submitted to respective boards, in conjunction with the board of public works of the city of Chicago.'
On Aug. 5, 1872, the common council of the city and the board of county commissioners passed an order providing for a joint contract between the city and county for the erection of a building on the court-house square, and on Aug. 28, 1872, the contract was executed. It declares that it was for the public convenience that the courts and the offices of the city 'should be located at some one convenient point and readily accessible to each other,' and provides for the erection, by the city and county, of a public building on the court-house square, for the use of the county and city governments respectively, and the courts of record; that the general exterior design of the building shall be of such uniform character and appearance as may be agreed upon by the board of county commissioners and the common council of the city.
The contract further provides as follows:——
'3. That portion of the said building situate west of the north and south centre line of said block shall be erected by the city of Chicago at its own expense.
'4. The city of Chicago shall occupy that portion of said block west of the said centre line for a city hall and offices incidental to the administration of the city government, and for no other purpose whatever, except as hereinbefore provided.
On Nov. 25, 1872, the building committees of the common council and the county commissioners published an advertisement calling for designs for the proposed building.
The advertisement declared that, in order to secure suitable designs, the city and county jointly offered the following premiums: For the best design, $5,000; for the second best, $2,000; and for the third best, $1,000.
It provided as follows:——
'Each design must have a device or motto marked on each drawing, and be accompanied by a sealed letter giving the name of the author, which will be opened after the final award is made, only for the purpose of ascertaining the names of the successful architects and for the return of the unsuccessful drawings to their authors.
'Each competitor will give the cubical contents of his building, and an estimate of the cost of the same complete.'
Designs were submitted by a large number of architects, and the building committees of the city council and the board of county commissioners made a report awarding the prizes. Tilley, who had adopted for his drawing the word 'Eureka' as the device or motto to distinguish it, was awarded the third prize, of $1,000.
On Aug. 4, the county board, and on Aug. 18, 1873, the city council, adopted the following resolution:——
'That the report of the majority of the joint committee awarding the prizes for plans of court-house and city hall shall be concurred in and the award confirmed, provided that nothing herein or in said report contained shall be construed as indicating a preference for either of said plans as to which shall be finally adopted, from which the said building shall be erected.' awarded to him as a prize.
Afterwards, on August 25, the county commissioners, and on Oct. 10, 1873, the city council, adopted the following resolution: —
'That the plan known as Eureka, or number 5 (five) in the collection, submitted for court-house and city hall, be and is hereby, selected and adopted as the plan after which to build such court-house and city hall (the board of commissioners of Cook County concurring), subject to such change and modifications as may hereafter be determined upon by the common council of the city of Chicago and the county board, provided the estimate of the architect who presented said plan as to the cost of construction of the building shall be verified.'
Upon the trial of the case, the testimony tending to establish the facts above recited having been given in evidence by the plaintiff, he was sworn as a witness in his own behalf, and testified that he was an architect of fifteen years' standing, that he had made the design designated by the word 'Eureka,' and that, after the passage by the city council and board of county commissioners of the resolution last above mentioned, he had verified the cost of the construction of the proposed building in the way customary and usual with architects, which was made up at the rate of thirty-five cents per cubic foot for the building, and was indorsed by fourteen or fifteen architects.
The plaintiff produced before the jury all his plans for which the prize had been awarded him. He offered to prove their value, the time employed and the expense incurred in the preparation of them. The court excluded the evidence so offered.
He further offered evidence to establish that by the usage and custom of architects, in the absence of a special contract, the superintendence of the construction of a building belonged to the architect whose plans were adopted. This was also excluded.
He also offered evidence to prove that by the usage and custom of architects, where prizes for plans were offered, the plans of the successful competitors belonged to them, and, if subsequently adopted as the plans to build by, were always paid for in addition to the prize itself. To this the defendants objected, and the court sustained the objection.
He also offered evidence to establish the value of the services rendered in verifying the cost of the proposed building according to the 'Eureka' plans; to which the defendants objected, and the court sustained the objection.
This was all the evidence given or offered to be given in the cause.
The plaintiff then rested his case; whereupon the court directed the jury to find for the defendants.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered thereon.
To reverse this judgment this writ of error was brought.
It will be observed that no evidence was introduced or offered to show that the plans of the plaintiff were used by the defendants, or either of them, or that the building for which they were used was ever erected.
It is clear that if the plaintiff has any right of action it must arise on the resolutions adopted by by the board of county commissioners, Aug. 25, and the city council, Oct. 10, 1873. All that had taken place before those dates was the making of a contract between the city and the county, by which they agreed to join in the erection of a public building in the court-house square, each party to build and pay for its own part of the structure; an offer by the city and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Binghampton Trust Company v. Auten
-
State ex inf. Crow v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
... ... of Law, 712; Ulmer v. Farnsworth, 80 Me. 500; ... Bank v. Burkhardt, 100 U.S. 692; Tilley v ... County of Cook, 103 U.S. 155. (4) Quo warranto will not ... lie in this court to control ... ...
-
Wilson v. Beckwith
...until the issuance of the bonds in April, 1859. Trustees v. Rider, 13 Conn. 87; Town of Concord v. Portsmouth, 92 U.S. 625; Tilley v. Chicago, 103 U.S. 155; Ellison v. Henshaw, 4 Wheat. 225; Bank v. Hall, 101 U.S. 43. (7) The word "property" has no fixed meaning. It may, when used in a will......
-
Lillard v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.
... ... from 1,200 bushels of grain at the Cedar Brook Distillery in ... Anderson county, Ky., each day it ran between December 25, ... 1902, and May 25, 1903, delivered under a written ... 488, 22 L.Ed. 395; ... Nat. Sav. Bank v. Ward, 100 U.S. 195, 25 L.Ed. 621; ... Tilley v. City of Chicago, 103 U.S. 155, 26 L.Ed ... 374; Grace v. Am. Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 278, 3 ... ...
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...510. 40. See generally Murray, supra note 4, at 880–82. 41. See Smithmeyer v. United States, 147 U.S. 342 (1893); Tilley v. Cnty. of Cook, 103 U.S. 155 (1880). 42. United States v. Mueller, 113 U.S. 153 (1885). 43. See, e.g. , Conde v. York, 168 U.S. 642 (1898) (subcontractor’s claim based ......