Clark v. Moore
| Decision Date | 07 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 4328,4328 |
| Citation | 86 S.E.2d 37,196 Va. 878 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | HARRY G. CLARK v. JAMES R. MOORE. Record |
Louis B. Fine and Robert C. Stackhouse, for the plaintiff in error.
Willcox, Cooke & Willcox and Richard B. Spindle, III, for the defendant in error.
Harry G. Clark filed a motion for judgment against James R. Moore, alleging that he was due the sum of $1,000 for services based upon an oral contract concerning certain work to be done on a building at the Naval Base in the city of Norfolk. The motion alleged in part:
'The said contract provided for the payment to the plaintiff of ten per cent of the profits made on the above mentioned work * * * for services rendered in figuring the costs and profits on the job, and the allocation of subcontracts, and for general engineering services and advice, in an effort to obtain an award of the contract work at the Naval Base, * * *'. It was further alleged that the profit on the work amounted to $10,000, and that plaintiff was entitled to ten per cent thereof, or $1,000.
The defendant filed his answer denying that he owed Clark any sum whatsoever under the alleged contract.
The case was tried before a jury, and at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the defendant moved to strike the evidence on the ground that it was alleged in the motion and established by Clark's testimony that he held himself out as a professional engineer and was practicing his profession without first having obtained a Virginia license, in violation of § 54-27, Code of Virginia, which violation rendered the contract illegal and void. The court sustained the motion, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. Over the objection of the plaintiff, judgment was entered on the verdict. We granted the plaintiff a writ of error.
Plaintiff testified that he had received a degree in civil engineering from the School of Engineering in Lima, Peru; that he was a civil engineer by occupation; that he had been engaged in the practice of engineering in many different capacities in Virginia, and that he was thoroughly qualified by education and practical experience as a civil engineer. He admitted, however, that he was not registered or licensed in Virginia.
Plaintiff contends that although he alleged in his motion that the contract provided for general engineering services and advice, and that while he testified that he was to render such services to the defendant, the services rendered did not factually come under the category of general engineering services and therefore § 54-27 should not apply.
He testified, however, that the services performed by him on behalf of the defendant pursuant to the contract included the following: (1) The inspection of the structure on which the work was to be performed. (2) A study of the government plans and specifications. (3) A detailed calculation of the estimated cost of the work. (4) The calculation of the amount of materials to be used in the repair of the structure. (5) The preparation of a detailed schedule of the work to be performed. (6) The procurement of a contractor's performance bond based upon the estimate prepared by him for the defendant.
The plaintiff also testified:
Aside from Clark's allegation and the admission in his testimony that his services to the defendant were general engineering services, the above detailed work performed by him clearly shows that the services rendered properly fall within the category of civil engineering services. The Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 6, p. 731, defines civil engineering in relation to modern practice as follows: 'The civil engineer may also specialize in the various steps in the stages of a project such as investigation, design, construction, operation or valuation. ' Admittedly,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Food Management, Inc. v. Blue Ribbon Beef Pack, Inc.
...1960, 161 Tex. 173, 338 S.W.2d 704; Markus & Nocka v. Julian Goodrich Architects, Inc., supra, Vt., 1969, 250 A.2d 739; Clark v. Moore, 1955, 196 Va. 878, 86 S.E.2d 37; Sherwood v. Wise, 1925, 132 Wash. 295, 232 P. 309, 42 A.L.R. 1219; contra, Robken v. May, Nev., 1968, 442 P.2d 913; Maxfie......
-
Southern Metal Treating Co. v. Goodner
...registration statute. Our view is in accordance with that of the Supreme Court of Virginia in its recent decision in Clark v. Moore, 196 Va. 878, 86 S.E.2d 37, decided under a licensing statute similar to the Alabama statute. See 53 C.J.S. Licenses § 59(b), pp. The more difficult question r......
-
State Bd. of Technical Registration v. McDaniel
...§ 54-17 'Definitions'--'(1) 'Architect' shall be deemed to cover an architect or an architectural engineer.' In Clark v. Moore, 1955, 196 Va. 878, 86 S.E.2d 37 the court used the definition of civil engineering (not defined in their Act) as found in the Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 6, P. 73......
-
Cooper v. Johnston
...registration statute. 'Our view is in accordance with that of the Supreme Court of Virginia in its recent decision in Clark v. Moore, 196 Va. 878, 86 S.E.2d 37, decided under a licensing statute similar to the Alabama statute. See 53 C.J.S. Licenses § 59(b), pp. Appellee contends that he wa......