Skip to main content
· 1/3/1922

Osterling v. Allegheny County

Citations

  • 272 Pa. 458
  • 116 A. 385
  • 1922 Pa. LEXIS 849

Syllabus

<p>Municipal contracts — County courthouse — Alterations — Commissions — Beduation — Consideration — Architect — Approval of contract by grand jury and quarter sessions — Amendment of statement — Quantum meruit — Statute of limitations — Act of April 15, 188k-, P- L. 589.</p> <p>1. County commissioners have no authority to enter into a contract with an architect to furnish plans and specifications and superintend additions and alterations to an existing courthouse, prior to securing the approval of the grand jury and court of quarter sessions to such additions and alterations, as required by the Act of April 15, 1834, P. L. 537, 539.</p> <p>2. An agreement for drawings, plans, specifications, contracts and general supervision of the work, is for a part of the enlargement of the building as much as any other work or material.</p> <p>3. Where the architect brings an action against the county on such a contract, he cannot amend his statement by adding a claim on a quantum meruit for the preparation of plans and specifications for the information of the grand jury, if it appears that the claim is not brought upon the record until thirteen years after the work was done, as the statute of limitations has then run.</p> <p>4. If the suit involves additions and alterations to a county jail, and they were properly authorized, the architect may recover for his services thus rendered.</p> <p>5. Where it appears that, at the architect’s request, a change of material for the jail was made involving a large increased cost to the county, an agreement by the architect to reduce his commissions from the amount stated in the contract, is based on a sufficient consideration.</p> <p>6. Where the county calls a witness who testifies that the architect agreed to reduce his commission to either two or two and one-half per cent, but that he could not recall which, the architect should be allowed two and one-half per cent instead of two per cent.</p> <p>7. The cost of removal of old building

Judges: Kephart, Moschzisker, Sadler, Schaerer, Simpson, Walling

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.