prize itself; and he offered evidence to establish the value of liis services in verifying the estimated cost.
All this evidence was excluded by the court. There was no evidence that his plans were ever used, or that any contract was made with him beyond the adoption of the resolution quoted above. The court held that the adoption of this resolution “ was not a proposition, but simply the expression of a purpose to build their structure after the plans of the plaintiff, subject to such changes and modifications as might thereafter be determined upon by the Common Council and the County Board.” “ The resolution was not adopted at his instance or suggestion.” He did no act, nor did he give any assent. “ There was no mutuality, and, therefore, no consideration, both of which are necessary to a contract.” The resolution might have been reconsidered and rescinded the next day, and the architect might have refused to furnish his plans and superintend the building. The Council and Board would have had, in that case, no claim against him, and he, in return, had none against them.
As to the custom of architects which he offered to prove, the court thought that it really was that, if the building was erected according to his plans, he was entitled to pay for them. “ That would be such an acceptance and adoption of his plans as would give him the right to compensation therefor, and the right to superintend the erection of his building and receive the usual remuneration; ” but a custom which bound a person who merely announced his intention to build in accordance with a certain plan, to pay for it if he did not use it, and to pay its author for superintending a building never erected, would be absurd and unreasonable, and, therefore, not binding. If the plaintiff had offered to show that after the passage of the resolution the defendants had erected their building according to his plans, then the evidence of the custom would have been pertinent. As to the evidence of the value of the work expended in verifying the cost, the court held that there was no implied contract to pay for services voluntarily rendered by the plaintiff, and of which no use was made by the defendants, and the evidence was properly excluded.
VOLUNTEERED SERVICE. 1
It may be said that, in general, courts do not look with much favor on competitions. If architects choose to enter contests in which no definite promises are made to them by responsible parties, the law will not supply the promises; and judges are quite ready to believe, from their own observation, that architects are willing to do a good deal of work without them; and, as in Mr. Tilley’s case, they will give no help in recovering pay for volunteered service. An architect in Missouri made plans for a building, and took them to the owner of the land, who told him that, if he built, he would employ him as architect. Afterwards the owner employed another architect. The first one sued for compensation for his plans, but was defeated, the court holding that nothing was due him for his services. These services, it said, were rendered “ under hope of being employed to superintend,” and the owner was not bound to make any return for them.
THE VALUE OF COMPETITIVE DRAWINGS. 2
A case of a different kind, of considerable importance for architects who engage in competitions, may close this part of the subject. The Trustees of the Touro Almshouse, in New Orleans, advertised for competitive designs, offering a single premium of $500. In response to the advertisement, Dr. Egbert delivered to the agent of the Adams Express Company at” Carlisle, Pa., a set of plans, to be transmitted to New Orleans, and prepaid the freight. The agent of the express company omitted to mark the package prepaid, and when it arrived at its destination the Almshouse Committee refused to pay the freight. Some months later, after the competition had been decided, and the $500 awarded to some one else, the mistake in marking the package was discovered, and the box again sent to the committee. At the request of the express company, the committee was convened to consider the plans, and found that they were unsuitable, not having sufficient provision for ventilation, and that they would not have received the prize in any case. The jury in the court below, when Dr. Egbert sued the express company for damages, awarded him $375. The Supreme Court reversed the decision. Egbert’s
counsel cited an English case, 3 in which a prize had been offered for the best plan and model for a macliine for loading coal from barges into vessels, the plans and models to be sent in by a certain day. The plaintiff sent a plan and model, but, through the negligence of the railway company, they did not arrive until after the appointed day. The English court appeared to be of the opinion, although the point was not directly raised, that the proper measure of damages was the value of the labor and materials expended in making the plan and model, and not the chance of obtaining the prize, the latter being too remote a ground for damages. Justice Pattison said that the right principle on which damages were recoverable was that the goods were made for a special purpose, which has been defeated by the negligence of the defendants, and thus they had become useless. The Pennsylvania court, however, thought that if Dr. Egbert’s plans were unsuitable, he was not damaged by having them mislaid, and could recover only a nominal sum, and said that, if the plaintiff’s competition for the prize had proved unsuccessful,“ the time and labor would have been lost, without any breach of the contract.”
The professional reader will be inclined to disagree with the Pennsylvania judge, and to think that Dr. Egbert suffered a real damage by the loss of his plans. Even the unsuccessful competitors in such an affair, if their designs are made with reasonable skill, are benefited by having them shown to the committee or to the public. It often happens that a plan which does not receive a prize, or which is obviously unsuitable, attracts by some quality the attention of persons who keep its author in mind for future employment, and architects who enter much into competitions find it for their interest to have their names as widely known as possible. All advantages of this kind Dr. Egbert lost by the negligence of the express company, and it certainly seems as if he were entitled to compensation for them.
(To be continued.)
GERMAN ARCHITECTURE. 4— I.
ROMANESQUE AND GOTHIC STYLES.
THE monuments remaining in Germany dating from Roman times are not especially numerous or important except
along the Rhine; the rest of the vast territory occupied by the Germanic peoples was much less rich than were the two Gauls in constructions reared by the foreign rulers. Notwithstanding this fact, architecture in Germany was Roman in style before and during the Carlovingian period.
Down to the tenth century the churches were copies of antique basilicas. The Cathedral of Treves, which is on a square plan, one hundred and thirty feet on each side, with three aisles divided off by four columns and covered with exposed timber work, dates from the sixth century; it exhibits in the details a rough imitation of Roman forms. Religious edifices were also occasionally built on an octagonal plan. The
1 Allen v. Bowman, 7 Mo. App. 29.
2 Adams Express Co. v. Egbert, 36 Penn. St. 360.
3 Watson v. Ambergate, 15 Jurist, 448.
4 From the French of Lambert and Stahl, in Planat’s Encyclopepie de l Archi
tecture et de la Construction.
All this evidence was excluded by the court. There was no evidence that his plans were ever used, or that any contract was made with him beyond the adoption of the resolution quoted above. The court held that the adoption of this resolution “ was not a proposition, but simply the expression of a purpose to build their structure after the plans of the plaintiff, subject to such changes and modifications as might thereafter be determined upon by the Common Council and the County Board.” “ The resolution was not adopted at his instance or suggestion.” He did no act, nor did he give any assent. “ There was no mutuality, and, therefore, no consideration, both of which are necessary to a contract.” The resolution might have been reconsidered and rescinded the next day, and the architect might have refused to furnish his plans and superintend the building. The Council and Board would have had, in that case, no claim against him, and he, in return, had none against them.
As to the custom of architects which he offered to prove, the court thought that it really was that, if the building was erected according to his plans, he was entitled to pay for them. “ That would be such an acceptance and adoption of his plans as would give him the right to compensation therefor, and the right to superintend the erection of his building and receive the usual remuneration; ” but a custom which bound a person who merely announced his intention to build in accordance with a certain plan, to pay for it if he did not use it, and to pay its author for superintending a building never erected, would be absurd and unreasonable, and, therefore, not binding. If the plaintiff had offered to show that after the passage of the resolution the defendants had erected their building according to his plans, then the evidence of the custom would have been pertinent. As to the evidence of the value of the work expended in verifying the cost, the court held that there was no implied contract to pay for services voluntarily rendered by the plaintiff, and of which no use was made by the defendants, and the evidence was properly excluded.
VOLUNTEERED SERVICE. 1
It may be said that, in general, courts do not look with much favor on competitions. If architects choose to enter contests in which no definite promises are made to them by responsible parties, the law will not supply the promises; and judges are quite ready to believe, from their own observation, that architects are willing to do a good deal of work without them; and, as in Mr. Tilley’s case, they will give no help in recovering pay for volunteered service. An architect in Missouri made plans for a building, and took them to the owner of the land, who told him that, if he built, he would employ him as architect. Afterwards the owner employed another architect. The first one sued for compensation for his plans, but was defeated, the court holding that nothing was due him for his services. These services, it said, were rendered “ under hope of being employed to superintend,” and the owner was not bound to make any return for them.
THE VALUE OF COMPETITIVE DRAWINGS. 2
A case of a different kind, of considerable importance for architects who engage in competitions, may close this part of the subject. The Trustees of the Touro Almshouse, in New Orleans, advertised for competitive designs, offering a single premium of $500. In response to the advertisement, Dr. Egbert delivered to the agent of the Adams Express Company at” Carlisle, Pa., a set of plans, to be transmitted to New Orleans, and prepaid the freight. The agent of the express company omitted to mark the package prepaid, and when it arrived at its destination the Almshouse Committee refused to pay the freight. Some months later, after the competition had been decided, and the $500 awarded to some one else, the mistake in marking the package was discovered, and the box again sent to the committee. At the request of the express company, the committee was convened to consider the plans, and found that they were unsuitable, not having sufficient provision for ventilation, and that they would not have received the prize in any case. The jury in the court below, when Dr. Egbert sued the express company for damages, awarded him $375. The Supreme Court reversed the decision. Egbert’s
counsel cited an English case, 3 in which a prize had been offered for the best plan and model for a macliine for loading coal from barges into vessels, the plans and models to be sent in by a certain day. The plaintiff sent a plan and model, but, through the negligence of the railway company, they did not arrive until after the appointed day. The English court appeared to be of the opinion, although the point was not directly raised, that the proper measure of damages was the value of the labor and materials expended in making the plan and model, and not the chance of obtaining the prize, the latter being too remote a ground for damages. Justice Pattison said that the right principle on which damages were recoverable was that the goods were made for a special purpose, which has been defeated by the negligence of the defendants, and thus they had become useless. The Pennsylvania court, however, thought that if Dr. Egbert’s plans were unsuitable, he was not damaged by having them mislaid, and could recover only a nominal sum, and said that, if the plaintiff’s competition for the prize had proved unsuccessful,“ the time and labor would have been lost, without any breach of the contract.”
The professional reader will be inclined to disagree with the Pennsylvania judge, and to think that Dr. Egbert suffered a real damage by the loss of his plans. Even the unsuccessful competitors in such an affair, if their designs are made with reasonable skill, are benefited by having them shown to the committee or to the public. It often happens that a plan which does not receive a prize, or which is obviously unsuitable, attracts by some quality the attention of persons who keep its author in mind for future employment, and architects who enter much into competitions find it for their interest to have their names as widely known as possible. All advantages of this kind Dr. Egbert lost by the negligence of the express company, and it certainly seems as if he were entitled to compensation for them.
(To be continued.)
GERMAN ARCHITECTURE. 4— I.
ROMANESQUE AND GOTHIC STYLES.
THE monuments remaining in Germany dating from Roman times are not especially numerous or important except
along the Rhine; the rest of the vast territory occupied by the Germanic peoples was much less rich than were the two Gauls in constructions reared by the foreign rulers. Notwithstanding this fact, architecture in Germany was Roman in style before and during the Carlovingian period.
Down to the tenth century the churches were copies of antique basilicas. The Cathedral of Treves, which is on a square plan, one hundred and thirty feet on each side, with three aisles divided off by four columns and covered with exposed timber work, dates from the sixth century; it exhibits in the details a rough imitation of Roman forms. Religious edifices were also occasionally built on an octagonal plan. The
1 Allen v. Bowman, 7 Mo. App. 29.
2 Adams Express Co. v. Egbert, 36 Penn. St. 360.
3 Watson v. Ambergate, 15 Jurist, 448.
4 From the French of Lambert and Stahl, in Planat’s Encyclopepie de l Archi
tecture et de la Construction.