Borgmeyer v. Solomon

CONREY, P. J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover fees alleged to be due to him from the defendant on a contract for professional services which were rendered by the plaintiff as an architect.

[1]

It was found by the court that the defendant employed the plaintiff as such architect to prepare plans and specifications for the erection of a hotel building at a described location in the city of Los Angeles, and agreed to pay therefor the sum of nine hundred dollars, which sum was to cover the cost of superintending the erection and construction of the building; also that the plaintiff prepared plans and specifications, as required by the defendant, and has at all times been ready,

[621]

willing, and able to perform the services of superintending the erection and construction of the said building, but the defendant has refused and still refuses to erect and construct said hotel building in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the plaintiff, and has refused to pay, etc. Judgment was gendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals therefrom.

Appellant contends that the findings above mentioned are not sustained by the evidence. In support of his contention that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the contract of employment on the terms stated in the complaint and found by the court, appellant insists that the evidence without conflict shows that the contract of employment was conditioned upon plaintiff procuring a tenant for the contemplated building, acceptable to the defendant. While an examination of the record shows that there was testimony given by the defendant and others tending to prove that the contract of employment was conditional, as above stated, yet such evidence was not without conflict. On the contrary, there is evidence strongly tending to show that the contract was free from such condition. This evidence showed, among other things, that the plaintiff was introduced to the defendant by one Seigel, a contractor, and that the plaintiff told the defendant that if defendant was willing to take a little less rent than he was proposing to demand, plaintiff was sure he could get him a tenant; that very promptly thereafter the plaintiff, through an agent, obtained the name of a prospective tenant and informed defendant that he had a tenant for the hotel; that this tenant, one Mrs. Verhaar, is the same person who afterward became the tenant of defendant’s building after it had been constructed by the defendant on plans prepared by an architect other than the plaintiff; that shortly after plaintiff’s first conversation with defendant an interview took place between plaintiff and defendant and Mrs. Verhaar, at which time Mrs. Verhaar stated that she would take the house if the plans suited her, but would not sign the agreement until the plans were completed; that the plaintiff prepared the plans and completed them about four weeks after the time of said interview at which Mrs. Verhaar was present; that during these four weeks the defendant and the contractor were present at the plaintiff’s office many times, examining the plans and mak