Lewis v. Com.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1954 |
| Citation | 332 Mass. 4,122 N.E.2d 888 |
| Parties | George Stephen LEWIS v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John H. F. Calver, Boston Albert West, Boston, for petitioner.
John V. Phelan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.
Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ.
This is a petition against the Commonwealth under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 258 by an architect seeking to recover $3,792.65 compensation for extra services alleged to have been performed under a written contract entered into between him and the Commonwealth acting by its department of State superintendent of buildings, hereinafter called the department, ahd the Massachusetts public building commission, hereinafter called the commission, for architectural and engineering services in connection with repairs upon the roof of the State House. An auditor found for the petitioner in the sum of $2,968.21 less the sum of $204.54, or a net total of $2,763.67. A judge of the Superior Court found for the petitioner in the sum of $208.91, being the total with interest of an item of $59.50 which is not now in issue and another item of $147.36 for supervisory services in connection with certain work orders. The Commonwealth did not dispute the validity of this finding. The judge reported the case upon the stipulation that his finding of $208.91 should stand if he ruled correctly in excluding the work orders and granting certain requests of the respondent, otherwise this amount 'should be increased by the sum of $2,763.67 which is the amount alleged to be due under said Article V' of the petitioner's contract with the Commonwealth.
The contract in Article II enumerated the various kinds of work the petitioner was to perform and in Article IV provided for his compensation based upon a percentage of the amounts payable to all the contractors in repairing the roof. During the course of the work seven written orders for extra work were given to the contractor. These orders were signed by the contractor, accepted in writing by the department, and approved in writing by the commission. All of these orders bore the written recommendation of the petitioner. The petitioner's compensation as to this class of work was provided for in Article V which was captioned 'Extra Services and Special Cases' and in so far as now material read as follows: 'If the Designer is ordered in writing by the Department, with the approval of the Commission, and only when so ordered, to perform extra drafting or other services ude to fundamental changes in the bid plans as required by the Department with the approval of the Commission * * * he shall be paid therefor, in addition to the base fees such amounts as may be approved by the Department and the Commission' on a certain basis, including drafting time, cost for prints of plans, and a certain amount per hours for the time devoted directly to the work by the petitioner.
We see no ambiguity in this written contract and its interpretation was a question of law for the judge, Creighton v. Elwell, 243 Mass. 580, 583, 137 N.E. 737; Gould v. Converse, 246 Mass. 185, 189, 140 N.E. 785; Specialty Trading Co. v. A. C. Erisman Co., 267 Mass. 220, 166 N.E. 642; and so was the qeustion whether the written orders given for the performance of extra work by the contractor constituted any written authority to the petitioner to render extra services. Crane Construction Co. v. Commonwealth, 290 Mass. 249, 253...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutton Corp. v. Metropolitan Dist. Com'n
...235 N.E.2d 783 (1968); Chiappisi v. Granger Contracting Co., 352 Mass. 174, 177-178, 223 N.E.2d 924 (1967); Lewis v. Commonwealth, 332 Mass. 4, 5-7, 122 N.E.2d 888 (1954); Glynn II, supra at 394-395, 487 N.E.2d 230; Skopek Bros. v. Webster Hous. Auth., 11 Mass.App.Ct. 947, 416 N.E.2d 1006 (......
-
Lopes v. Commonwealth, SJC-09188 (MA 7/9/2004)
...claim for payment of extra services, although beneficial to the recipient, rendered outside a contract. Id. at 793, citing Lewis v. Commonwealth, 332 Mass. 4, 6 (1954). Here, the plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichment does not state a separate cause of action, but a theory of recovery. J.A.......
-
Glynn v. City of Gloucester
...a failure by the contractor to invoke its remedies under the agreement and Blue Book will preclude all relief (Lewis v. Commonwealth, 332 Mass. 4, 5-6, 122 N.E.2d 888 (1954); State Line Contractors, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 356 Mass. at 316-319, 249 N.E.2d 619), unless the contractor can demon......
-
Lopes v. Commonwealth
...claim for payment of extra services, although beneficial to the recipient, rendered outside a contract. Id. at 793, citing Lewis v. Commonwealth, 332 Mass. 4, 6 (1954). Here, the plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichment does not state a separate cause of action, but a theory of recovery. J.A.......