Ritter v. School Dist. of City of Harrisburg
| Decision Date | 03 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | 21 |
| Citation | 291 Pa. 439,140 A. 126 |
| Parties | Ritter, Appellant, v. Harrisburg School District |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 30, 1927
Appeal, No. 21, May T., 1927, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Dauphin Co., Jan. T., 1924, No. 498, on verdict for defendant, in case of Verus T. Ritter v. School District of the City of Harrisburg. Affirmed.
Assumpsit by architect on contract. Before Fox, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned were various rulings and instructions, quoting record.
The judgment is affirmed.
Francis H. Hohlen, Jr., with him Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul and Beidleman & Hull, for appellant. -- There was no evidence to submit to the jury on which it could base a finding that the contract was an invalid increase of indebtedness when made McKinnon v. Mertz, 225 Pa. 85; Kreusler v School Dist., 256 Pa. 281; Addystone P. & S. Co. v. Corry City, 197 Pa. 41.
The school district was not relieved from liability for the breach of the appellant's contract because it became impossible to build the girls' senior high school without exceeding the remainder of the increase of debt authorized by the electors: Gable v. Altoona, 200 Pa. 15; Potters Nat. Bank v. Twp., 260 Pa. 104; Schilling v. Twp., 260 Pa. 113; Com. v. Bader, 271 Pa. 308.
The Van Sickle report was not binding on appellant and it was error for the judge to charge the jury that they might find that it was.
John R. Geyer, with him M. W. Jacobs, for appellee. -- The contract was too indefinite to be enforced: Briggs v. Morris, 244 Pa. 139.
Even if the agreement were not void for uncertainty, it could be enforced only in the manner and under the circumstances contemplated by the parties: McMillin v. Titus, 222 Pa. 500; Callen v. Hilty, 14 Pa. 286; Richardson v. Clements, 89 Pa. 503; McKeesport M. Co. v. Ins. Co., 173 Pa. 53; Myers's Est., 238 Pa. 195.
Impossibility excuses performance: Pollard v. Shaaffer, 1 Dall. 210; Scully v. Kirkpatrick, 79 Pa. 324; Miles v. Stevens, 3 Pa. 21; Lovering v. Coal Co., 54 Pa. 291; Ward v. Vance, 93 Pa. 499; Dixon v. Breon, 22 Pa.Super. 340; Wertz v. Klinger, 25 Pa.Super. 523.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
A recital of the facts in this case disclosed by the record, will demonstrate that, as determined in the court below, plaintiff should not recover. In having his case submitted to a jury he got more consideration than he was entitled to receive; the trial judge should have decided the case as a matter of law.
Plaintiff, an architect, sued the School District of Harrisburg for $26,300, representing commissions on a school building which was never built and for which he did not even prepare definite and finished plans. The total commissions claimed amount to $40,000, representing 5% on $800,000, the estimated cost of the building. The difference between that sum and the amount sued for represents what plaintiff estimates it would have cost to carry out his undertaking had the building been constructed as he planned it. The claim is not on a quantum meruit for work which he actually did, but for the entire net amount which would have been due him had the building been constructed.
In the year 1916 the public schools of Harrisburg being overcrowded, its school authorities employed an expert, Dr. Van Sickle, to make a survey of them. In August of that year he made a written report recommending that three junior high schools be created and that a new school be erected to accommodate all girls of senior high school age. The plan as outlined provided for two new school buildings and the enlarging and remodelling of three existing ones. The total estimated outlay was $1,190,000, of which $380,000 was for the new girls' high school and $200,000 for its site. The school board ultimately concluded that it would be expedient to increase the debt of the district by $1,250,000 to carry out the program and the electors gave their assent to this increase.
In January, 1917, the secretary of the school board addressed a communication to a number of architects, including plaintiff, informing them that the school district was considering a building program and invited them to attend a competition to demonstrate their fitness to design and superintend the erection of the contemplated structures. Plaintiff attended and exhibited a tentative sketch of a high school building.
In May, 1917, the board appointed four architects for the different buildings; appellant as one of them was chosen to prepare plans and specifications for the girls' senior high school and to superintend its construction. On June 30, 1917, the formal written contract between him and the school board, which is the basis for this action, was executed. It recited his appointment as architect to prepare plans and superintend erection "of a new girls' high school building" and his acceptance of the appointment. He agreed that he would when desired confer with the other architects who had been selected, and he undertook to prepare preliminary and working drawings and to perform the usual architect's services. The school board agreed to pay him 5% of the total cost of the building and equipment. At the time this contract was signed, it was not known what kind of a building was to be erected nor had any site been selected. Plaintiff did nothing to carry out the contract except to prepare some preliminary sketches and plans.
In September, 1917, the board postponed the selection of a site. In December, 1917, the contract for the junior high school was let at $403,000, an increase of $200,000 over the original estimate. In January, 1918, a contract was awarded for another of the buildings for $230,000, an increase of $170,000 over the original estimate. In order that it might borrow the necessary money to carry on the work of constructing the two buildings which it had contracted for, the school board had to agree with the federal government that it would engage in no further building activities. The completion of the two schools actually built, owing to additional costs, left but $417,000 of the electoral loan of $1,250,000 unexpended. Because of war conditions, the board, in January, 1918, passed a resolution postponing indefinitely the erection of the girls' senior high school and the enlargement and remodelling of two of the other buildings. Consequently plaintiff was notified by the school board, in January, 1918, that it had indefinitely postponed action on the building with which he was concerned.
During the summer of 1918, the superintendent of schools recommended another survey by experts, which was made and they reported that owing to war conditions the cost of the buildings already constructed had been unexpectedly high and that to carry out the original program would entail greatly increased cost and they recommended that the project of building separate senior high schools be abandoned and that a single co-educational high school be erected. In February, 1920 plaintiff was notified of a meeting of the board and that a resolution concerning the selection of an architect for the senior high school would be considered. He attended the meeting and subsequently wrote a letter to the board asking for advices in connection with the performance of "my contract for the senior high school." To this he received a reply stating that the board had selected another architect to plan a coeducational senior high school, that the building of a girls' senior high school had been abandoned and that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial