Gaddis v. Barton Sch. Tp. of Gibson Cnty.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1929
• Docket Number: No. 13085.,13085.
• Citation: 164 N.E. 499,89 Ind.App. 369
• Parties: GADDIS v. BARTON SCHOOL TP. OF GIBSON COUNTY.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

89 Ind.App. 369

164 N.E. 499

GADDIS

v.BARTON SCHOOL TP. OF GIBSON COUNTY.

No. 13085.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

Jan. 11, 1929.

Appeal from Gibson Circuit Court; M. C. Embree, Special Judge.

Action by John W. Gaddis against the Barton School Township of Gibson County, Ind. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

T. Morton McDonald, of Princeton, for appellant.

Charles O. Baltzell, of Princeton, for appellee.

REMY, J.

Action by appellant against appellee to recover for services rendered by appellant as architect in the preparation of plans and specifications for construction of a schoolhouse. Complaint in four paragraphs. First and second are based upon a written contract, third on an oral contract, and the fourth upon a quantum meruit. Answer to the complaint was in three paragraphs, the first being a denial. By the second paragraph it was pleaded that appellant agreed to prepare plans to the approval of the state board of accounts and the state board of tax commissioners; that the plans prepared, and for which appellant seeks recovery, called for the expenditure of money greatly in excess of the funds of the township available for the contemplated improvement, and for that reason were not approved by the two state boards. The defense pleaded by the third paragraph is that no appropriation had been made by the township advisory board, and the trustee had not been authorized to borrow the money to pay the indebtedness. A reply in denial closed the issues.

On the trial the court, upon request, found the facts specially and stated its conclusions of law thereon in favor of the township judgment accordingly. That the court erred in its conclusions of law is the only error assigned and presented.

The facts specially found are, in substance: That at all times herein involved Charles Wheaton was the trustee of appellee, school township; that at a meeting of the township advisory board, September 27, 1921, “it was represented to the advisory board that an emergency existed” for the erection of a township high school building, and on that day the trustee was ordered to have plans and specifications for such building ready for submission to the advisory board at a meeting to be held October 22, 1921; that, in compliance with the order, the trustee invited architects, including appellant, to submit plans and specifications for the proposed building; that appellant submitted plans and specifications, which at a meeting of the advisory board held October 24, 1921, were by the board adopted; that, October 31, 1921, the trustee entered into a written contract with appellant by the terms of which he was to furnish the plans and specifications, for which he was to receive a sum equal to 4 per cent. of the cost of the building, which contract contained the provision that the “plans and specifications when completed must receive the approval of the State Board of Health, State Board of Accounts and such other officers whose duty it is to approve of plans for township school buildings;” also that, if “for any cause the trustee should find it impossible to proceed with the construction of the building,” the appellant would have no claim against the township; that the advisory board did not authorize the trustee to execute the contract, nor did it appropriate funds for the payment of the services contemplated thereby; that the trustee received bids based upon the plans and specifications furnished by appellant, let the contract for the construction of the building at the price of $49,834, and was directed by the advisory board to enter into a contract with the successful bidder; June 21, 1922, an emergency was declared by resolution of the board for the construction of the building and the trustee authorized to issue bonds of the township in the sum of $40,000 for the purpose of paying for the building; that the total value of the taxable property of the township at the time was $2,144,905, and the indebtedness $600; that the bonds were not issued, and the construction of the building abandoned, and “it became and was impossible for the township to proceed with the work of constructing the building in accordance with the plans because of the cost thereof, and because...