Union Iron Works v. Strauser

• Decision Date: 09 October 1914
• Docket Number: 11766.
• Citation: 143 P. 446,82 Wash. 51
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: UNION IRON WORKS v. STRAUSER et al.

143 P. 446

82 Wash. 51

UNION IRON WORKS v. STRAUSER et al.

No. 11766.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 9, 1914

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County.

Action by the Union Iron Works against Thomas Strauser and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss.

Danson, Williams & Danson and Geo. D. Lantz, all of Spokane, for appellant.

Post Avery & Higgins, of Spokane, for respondent.

MAIN J.

This action was instituted for the purpose of recovering upon a surety bond for material furnished to T. Strauser & Son, who had a contract for the construction of the Northern Hospital for the Insane, at Sedro Woolley, Wash. The cause was tried to the court sitting without a jury. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs. The defendant Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland appeals.

The facts in this case are not materially different from those in the case of Wheeler, Osgoode Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 78 Wash. 328, 139 P. 53. The plaintiff here occupies a corresponding position to the Wheeler Osgoode Company in that case. The principal question involved is whether the board of control, in the contract which it made with Strauser & Son, had delegated to the architects the power to accept the building. In the Wheeler, Osgoode Case it was held that, under the terms of the contract, such power was given to the architects, and that the architects had, in fact, accepted the building on December 6, 1912. The claim against the bond in the present case was filed with the board on January 8, 1913. Without detailing the facts, or reviewing the law, it may be said that the decision of this question has been determined adversely to the contention of the respondent in the Wheeler Osgoode Case.

The other point involved is whether the board had the power to delegate to the architects the right to accept the building when it should conform to the contract. The law appears to be that where the body acting for the state, county municipality, or other public body, has been given power by statute or charter to contract for public buildings or improvements, such body, acting for the state or other public body, in the absence of a limitation which forbids such delegation, may delegate to an architect, engineer, or other proper person, the right to determine when the work contracted for conforms to the specifications. This is not an attempted delegation of the right to exercise the judgment or discretion vested in a body acting for the public, but is a delegation of the right to determine a fact; that is, to determine whether the building or improvement constructed is in accordance with the terms of the contract and specifications. This fact is to be determined as any other question of fact. The board of control had the power to authorize the architects to determine whether the building conformed to the plans and specifications, and, if they found that the contract was satisfied in that regard, to accept the work. State ex rel. Murphy v....