Cates & Shepard v. Seltzer

Citations

• 62 Pa. Super. 348
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 421

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Building contract — Extra worlc — Architect—Principal and agent.</p> <p>In an action by a subcontractor against an owner to recover the costs of certain extra work alleged to have been- ordered by the defendant’s architect, if there is no evidence of direct or actual authority in the architect to give the order, and the plaintiff relies upon an apparent authority, the case is for the jury, where the defendant denies that the architect had any authority and this is corroborated by the testimony of the architect and one other witness, and this is supplemented by the fact that in two other instances of departure from the specifications, the plaintiff required previous written authorization of tbe architect to do the extra work, and further by the fact, that when the work was done the building had been leased to a third party on whose account, according to the architect, the fextra work had been ordered.</p> <p>Where an agency is to be implied from the conduct of the parties, or is to be established by witnesses, the fact and scope of the agency are for the jury.</p>