Reid v. Boyle (1919) · DecisionDepot

Reid v. Boyle

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Aug 26, 1919 No. Civ. No. 3087.Published

Before: Waste

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the city architect's claim for fees based on a percentage of construction costs was valid and enforceable, as the city was empowered to enter into such a contract and the compensation arrangement did not violate charter provisions requiring fixed monthly salaries for city employees.

Issues

Whether the city architect is required by the city charter to receive a fixed monthly salary rather than a percentage-based fee.
Whether the city was empowered to enter into a contract for architectural services compensated by a percentage of construction costs.

Disposition. writ issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“No reason presents itself to us why the city was not empowered by its charter to enter into the arrangement made with the petitioner.”

Synopsis

PROCEEDING in Mandamus to compel the auditor of the City and County of San Francisco to audit a claim for services as architect. Writ issued.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

WASTE, P. J.

In this proceeding, as was the case in

Miller

Boyle, post,

p. 39, [184 Pac. 421], the petitioner is seeking an alternative writ of mandate directed to the respondent as auditor of the city and county of San Francisco, requiring him to audit a claim in the sum of $180, alleged to be due as architect’s fees for the preparation of preliminary studies for plans and specifications for a residence building, for the use of the chief of the fire department of the city and county. The facts are in all particulars, with one essential difference, so similar to those presented in the Miller case,

supra,

that we will only state the additional matter in controversy. The two cases were argued and submitted to us for decision upon the facts set forth in the petition and the law as raised by the demurrer.

After the passage of the ordinance authorizing the board of public works, in its discretion, to obtain plans, drawings, specifications, and details for the erection of public buildings, referred to in the Miller case, the board of supervisors of the city and county, by resolution regularly adopted, directed the board of public works to prepare plans and specifications for a building suitable and adapted for residential purposes, for the chief engineer of the fire department of the city, and to submit the same, when so prepared, first to the board of fire commissioners, and then to the board of supervisors for approval and action thereon. Thereafter, by resolution, duly adopted, the board of public works appointed John Beid, Jr., the petitioner here, city architect. The resolution provides “that the duties of the city architect shall be to prepare plans and specifications for all public buildings, works, or improvements, for which the board of public works shall direct him to prepare such plans and specifications, and to supervise the construction of all public buildings, works, or improvements, the construction of which the board of public works shall direct him to supervise.” The resolution also provides that the compensation of such city architect “shall be six per cent of the total cost of the construction of the respective,

[36]

Reid v. Boyle

AI Brief

Synopsis

WASTE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief