Parsons v. Brown

• Decision Date: 11 April 1896
• Parties: W. R. PARSONS & SONS, Appellants, v. TIMOTHY BROWN, et al
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

66 N.W. 880

97 Iowa 699

W. R. PARSONS & SONS, Appellants, v. TIMOTHY BROWN, et al

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 11, 1896

Appeal from Marshall District Court.--HON. B. P. BIRDSALL, Judge.

ACTION in equity to recover an amount alleged to be due the plaintiffs for services rendered as architects, and to establish a mechanic's lien therefor. There was a hearing on the merits, which resulted in the dismissing of the petition. The plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed.

Read & Read for appellants.

H. E J. Boardman and T. Brown for appellees.

OPINION

ROBINSON, J.

The plaintiffs are architects, and at the time of the transactions in question were engaged in business in Des Moines. The defendants were the owners of the Tremont House in Marshalltown, and employed the plaintiffs to prepare plans and specifications for changes therein, and improvements which were projected by the defendants. The agreement between the parties, for services to be rendered, was verbal. The plaintiffs contend that it provided that they were to receive five per cent. of the cost of the changes and improvements for full services, which included the furnishing of plans specifications, and detail drawings, and the superintending of the work, two and one-half per cent. for plans and specifications only, and one per cent. for sketching in pencil,--the five per cent. to be computed upon the cost of the new work, and the cost or value of the portion of the old building connected therewith, required to be delineated in making the plans and specifications. The plaintiffs allege: That the cost of the new work was fifteen thousand dollars. That the cost or value of the old work delineated, was eight thousand five hundred dollars. That they prepared plans and specifications for steel beams not used, the cost of which would have been one thousand two hundred dollars; for certain water closets, not built, which would have cost eight hundred dollars; and for a steam plant, the estimated cost of which was two thousand dollars. They also allege that they made a sketch in pencil for an addition to the building, which was estimated to cost eight thousand dollars. They ask as compensation, five per cent. of the cost of the new work, and of the old work delineated, two and one-half per cent. of the estimated cost of the beams, water closets and steam plant, and one per cent. of the estimated cost of the addition, or a total of one thousand three hundred and fifty-five dollars, and acknowledge payment on that account, of two hundred and fifty dollars. They ask, also, that a mechanic's lien be established on the property, for the balance due. The defendants admit the employment of the plaintiffs, but aver that the agreement required them to draw plans, specifications and details for all work required, which should be of such quality and style that the entire changes and improvements, including labor and material, boilers, plumbing and steam fitting, should not cost more than seven thousand five hundred dollars; and for the plans, specifications and details to be so furnished, they were to receive two and one-half per cent. of the cost of the changes and improvements. The defendants allege that the work done by the plaintiffs was, in particulars which are enumerated, defective and unskillful; that provision was made by them for certain parts of the work to be in an extravagant and unnecessarily expensive style; that a front arch, for which provision was made, was unnecessary, unsightly, and entailed an unnecessary expense of one thousand dollars; and that the defendants were compelled to abandon some of the plans because they were not properly made. The defendants deny that the...