Rosenheim v. Howze (1918) · DecisionDepot

Rosenheim v. Howze

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

California Supreme Court Nov 20, 1918 No. L. A. No. 4569.Published

Before: Melvin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an architect's fee for services rendered under a written contract was payable within a reasonable time after the owner abandoned the project, regardless of whether the owner successfully negotiated a loan.

Issues

Whether the statute of limitations barred recovery on a quantum meruit claim.
Whether the architect's right to payment was conditioned upon the owner successfully negotiating a loan.
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the owner's failure to secure a loan were outside the scope of the pleadings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The contract did not provide for the payment of the architect only in the event of the securing of a loan by Mr. Howze.”

“If he did not negotiate a loan, the indebtedness became payable within a reasonable time.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,. and from an order denying a new trial. John M. York, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

MELVIN, J.

Plaintiff sued for a fee alleged to be due to him as an architect for designing and supervising the partial construction of a house on land owned by John Howze. There were two causes of action set forth in the complaint, one based upon an alleged written contract and the other was a declaration upon

quantum meruit.

Judgment was given for plaintiff in the sum of $2,300.80 and costs. Defendants (as successors of John Howze, deceased) appeal from the judgment and from an order denying the motion for a new trial. .

One of the objections urged to the judgment by the appellants is that no recovery on

quantum meruit

may be had because more than two years had elapsed between the time when the work was completed and the filing of the complaint herein. We need not decide, however, whether or not the statute of limitations bars recovery upon the second cause of action pleaded, because the court correctly found that John Howze was liable for the payment of the architect’s fee under a written contract.

The uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiff wrote to the defendant on April 15, 1908, a letter of which the material part is as follows:

“The undersigned hereby proposes and agrees to render architectural services in connection with your new residence, proposed to be erected in Westchester Place, for a fee of 10% on the first $20,000, 8% on the next $10,000, and 6% on everything over $30,000, figured on the total cost of the same when completed, as per the schedule of minimum

[311]

charges of the American Institute of Architects, copy of which is hereto attached.

“I also offer my services in assisting you to the extent of arranging with the contractor to carry the work of construction forward to the point of completing the wooden frame and covering it with the rough boarding and outside trimmings before demanding any payment on account of Ms contract.

“I will further agree to make no demand for payment on account of my own services until you have succeeded in negotiating a loan.”

Rosenheim v. Howze

AI Brief

Synopsis

MELVIN, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief