Robertson v. King
| Decision Date | 21 April 1881 |
| Citation | 55 Iowa 725,8 N.W. 665 |
| Parties | ROBERTSON v. KING. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Polk circuit court.
In April, 1878, the plaintiff contracted in writing with the defendant to furnish the necessary brick and materials, and erect for the defendant a twostory brick dwelling-house. The contract was made with reference to certain specifications prepared by William Foster, an architect, and provided that performance should be in strict accordance with said specifications, and under the direction and to the satisfaction of said Foster, “whose opinion, certificate, and decision on all matters pertaining to the intent and meaning of the plans and specifications, or any part of them,” should be binding upon the said plaintiff. The specifications contained this clause: “From the top of the foundation to the roof of the building to be constructed with good, hard brick, laid in close and full joints, with coarse, sharp, and fresh lime mortar outside wall, with selected stock of brick of uniform color, and lay them in white mortar, with neat struck joints. * * *” Another clause was in these words: “All brick to be of best quality, well burnt, hard brick.” It was further provided, in the specifications, that, in the event of any difficulty which might arise between the parties during the progress of the work, the architect should have power to decide, and from his decision there should be no recourse to law, and all payments for work to be made upon the certificate of the architect.
The plaintiff claims that he completed the work according to the contract, and that there is due to him thereon a balance of about $1,000; that the said Foster unreasonably and in bad faith declines to give him a certificate of compliance with the terms of said contract, and the defendant refuses to make payment of the balance due. A mechanic's lien was filed, and the action is in equity for a judgment and foreclosure of the decree. The defendant denies that the plaintiff has kept or performed his contract, and avers that he failed, neglected, and refused to furnish hard brick for the walls of said building, as he was bound to do, but on the contrary, against the protest of the defendant, and without the permission or approval of said architect, plaintiff built in said walls a large number of brick of a quality inferior and cheaper than those called for in said contract, and avers that plaintiff is not entitled to a certificate of compliance from said architect. There was a trial to the court upon written evidence. A judgment and decree were entered for the plaintiff, but deducting from the amount claimed to be due about $200, because of the alleged inferior quality of part of the brick used in the construction of the building. Plaintiff appeals.Brown & Dudley, for appellant.
Barcroft & McCaughan, for appellee.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial