Lull v. Korf
Citations
- 84 Ill. 225
Syllabus
<p>1. Building contract—architect's certificate. Where payments are to be made for work on the certificate of two architects, who are partners, and the certifícale is signed by one in the firm name, this will be sufficient to justify a recovery of the payments where no objection is made to the certificate, but payment is refused on the ground of delay in completing the work.</p> <p>2. Same—when pa/rty precluded from urging defects. Where work on a building is done under the supervision of architects chosen by the parties to the contract, the owner of the building can not be allowed to urge defects in the work. The decision of the architects must be final and conclusive, unless it be shown their certificate is the offspring of fraud or mistake connected with the issuing or obtaining of the same.</p>
Judges: Bbeese
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
- St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. BradburySupreme Court of Minnesota· 1889-12-24· cited 16×
- Roy v. BotelerMissouri Court of Appeals· 1890-03-31· cited 12×
- Concord Apartment House Co. v. O'BrienAppellate Court of Illinois· 1906-10-08· cited 4×
- Davis v. GibsonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1897-06-14
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.