Minuth v. Barnwell

Citations

• 106 A.D. 437
• 94 N.Y.S. 649
• 1905 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2604

Syllabus

<p>Recovery for services as an architect — what evidence does not establish an express agreement of employment — when a recovery on a quantum meruit is improper.</p> <p>The complaint in an action brought to recover for services rendered by the plaintiff, an architect, to the defendants’ testator in the preparation of plans for a building to be erected upon á lot owned by the defendants’ testator, alleged that the testator employed and retained the plaintiff to prepare such plans. Upon the trial the only evidence offered to sustain such allegation of employment was that the plaintiff had prepared certain preliminary sketches for the erection of a building upon the lot owned by the defendants’ testator; that these sketches or plans were in the possession of the testator for some time and were subsequently returned to the plaintiff; that the testator told a person, who inquired the price of the land in question, that he had had' plans prepared for a building on the lot by the plaintiff; that he liked the plans very much and approved of them; that, according to such plans, the property would pay on a valuation of §1,000,000.</p> <p>Held,, that the trial court properly ruled that the evidence was insufficient to sustain an express agreement of employment as alleged in the complaint;</p> <p>That it was improper for the trial court to charge that even though no contract of employment were proved, if the defendants’ testator received the benefit of the plaintiff’s work, the latter might recover upon a quantum meruit ;</p> <p>That, even if the charge was correct as an abstract proposition of law, it was improper as applied to the case at bar, as there was no evidence that the defendants’ testator ever accepted or used the plans or that they were ever of any value to him.</p>