Rieger v. Pittsburg

Citations

• 54 Pa. Super. 425
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 79

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Cities of the second class — Municipal contracts— Contract not in writing — Architect—Acts of March 7, 1901, P. L. SO, and June SO, 1901, P. L. 586.</p> <p>1. In an action by an architect against a city of the second class to recover compensation for preparing two sets of plans and specifications for a fire house, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, where it appears that the bids on both plans were rejected because they exceeded the amount of the appropriation; that the plaintiff had no written contract whatever with the city, that there was no ordinance authorizing his employment or appropriating money for his services; and that the only agreement which he had was an oral one with the director of the department of public safety.</p> <p>2. In such a case the mere fact that the director made use of the plans and specifications to receive bids thereon, did not constitute a ratification by the city of the oral agreement between the director and the architect.</p> <p>3. The contracts referred to in art. 15 of the Act of March 7, 1901, P. L. 20, are not confined only to such as are the subject of competitive bidding.</p>