Goss v. Northern P. Hosp. Ass'n of Tacoma

• Decision Date: 14 August 1908
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GOSS v. NORTHERN PAC. HOSPITAL ASS'N OF TACOMA.

96 P. 1078

50 Wash. 236

GOSS v. NORTHERN PAC. HOSPITAL ASS'N OF TACOMA.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 14, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford, Judge.

Action by Fenton H. Goss against the Northern Pacific Hospital Association of Tacoma. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Herbert S. Griggs and Walter M. Harvey, for appellant.

B. S Grosscup, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

In June, 1904, the respondent asked for bids for the construction of a hospital and staff cottage building on certain lots which it owned in Tacoma, Wash., according to plans and specifications which had been theretofore prepared by its architects. The appellant submitted a bid for the work which proved to be the lowest, and was requested to visit the architects with a view to entering into a contract. The architects had their office at St. Paul, Minn., and it was at that place the consultation was held. At that time certain changes in the specifications with regard to the material to be used were made, and it was also agreed that the furnishing and installation of the plumbing and the heating plant should be let as a separate contract. The remaining work was thereupon let to the appellant. The appellant returned home and entered on the performance of the contract about the 1st of July, 1904. The contract was reduced to writing and signed by the parties a month or six weeks later. As written, the contract provided for the completion of the building by March 1, 1905, and contained the following clause: 'Should the contractor be obstructed or delayed in the prosecution or completion of his work by the act, neglect, delay or default of the owner, or the architects, or of any other contractor employed by the owner upon the work, or by any damage which may happen by fire, lightning, earthquake or cyclone, or by the abandonment of the work by the employés through no default of the contractor, then the time herein fixed for the completion of the work shall be extended for a period equivalent to the time lost by reason of any or all of the causes aforesaid but no such allowance shall be made unless a claim therefor is presented in writing to the architects, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of such delay. The duration of such extension shall be certified to by the architects, but appeal from their decision may be made to arbitration, as provided in article 3 of this contract.' The contract for the plumbing and the installation of the heating plant was let to the Dwyer Steam Heating Company of St. Paul by the respondent as an independent contract. The terms of this contract are not shown in the record, and it does not appear whether there was any breach of the contract on the part of the company or not; but it did not put in the plumbing nor install the heating plant at the time the building was ready to receive them, thereby delaying the appellant in the performance of his part of the contract to his damage, as he claims, in a large sum of money. The appellant also was required by the architect in charge to do some work not called for the his contract, and certain deductions were made for materials which the architect claimed to be defective and not in accordance with the...