The limits of our work do not permit us to expatiate- upon their beauties. We will simply give, as an example of the early Renaissance, an oriel window from Tucher’s house dating from
1533 (Figure 37). Rupprecht’s house contains a hall of which Figure 38 olfers a partial reproduction. It was constructed in
1534 by Hirschvogel, and constitutes one of the finest interiors
in Nuremberg. Peller’s house (now Eysser’s) is a typical patrician dwelling of a late Renaissance type (Figure 39).
The general disposition of the Nuremberg houses includes a vaulted entrance leading to a court surrounded by galleries, in
wood or with arcades; the services are grouped about this court and the galleries serve as passageways.
The town-hall is a noble structure in the Italian style. We note, in closing, a fragment of military architecture, which is
In 1877, the well-known architect, Arthur Gilman, sued2 Mrs. Marietta R. Stevens for a balance of $832 due for pro
fessional services in completing and building an addition to an apartment-house on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Twenty-seventh Street, New York, and also for a com
mission of 2-J per cent on the estimated cost, “ according to the schedule of the Institute of Architects,” for making pre
liminary studies, general drawings and specifications for a proposed building on Thirty-seventh Street, which was not carried out. The estimated cost of this building was $425,000,
and the commission claimed amounted to $10,625. In regard to this charge, Mrs. Stevens claimed that the plans were
merely an adaptation of some made for another person, and
that the service was volunteered, Mr. Gilman having told her
Fig. 36. Town-hall at Rothenburg.
represented at Nuremberg by numerous and beautiful exam
ples ; this is the Frauentlior, one of the most curious of the gates of the old imperial city (Figure 40).
[ To be continued.]
ARCHITECT, OWNER & BUILDER BEFORE THE LAW. 1 —VIII.
TWO MORE NEW YORK CASES.
B
ESIDES the last two cases, two more may be given, both from New York, which will illustrate what seems to be the
difference in the way of looking at such matters in the same
State, between an inferior court some fifteen years ago, and the highest court in the State ten years later.
that the plans “should cost her nothing,” and she set up a counter-claim against Mr. Gilman for $20,000 for negligence in his work on the Twenty-seventh Street house, alleging that, “ n consequence of negligence and want of skill and attention on the part of the plaintiff, the said building was not constructed in a strong and substantial manner. . . . The mate
rials used in and about the construction of the same were not of the best character, and the work and labor upon the same were not faithfully performed, and that, in consequence thereof, the said building is less in value by the sum of $20,000 and
upwards than it should be if the plaintiff had performed his agreement and discharged his duty in the premises.”
The defendant’s son-in-law testified that “certain arches
over the store-windows in the first floor were weak, so that he
1 Continued from No. 819, page 147.
5 Gilman vs. Stevens, 54 N. Y., P. R., 197.
1533 (Figure 37). Rupprecht’s house contains a hall of which Figure 38 olfers a partial reproduction. It was constructed in
1534 by Hirschvogel, and constitutes one of the finest interiors
in Nuremberg. Peller’s house (now Eysser’s) is a typical patrician dwelling of a late Renaissance type (Figure 39).
The general disposition of the Nuremberg houses includes a vaulted entrance leading to a court surrounded by galleries, in
wood or with arcades; the services are grouped about this court and the galleries serve as passageways.
The town-hall is a noble structure in the Italian style. We note, in closing, a fragment of military architecture, which is
In 1877, the well-known architect, Arthur Gilman, sued2 Mrs. Marietta R. Stevens for a balance of $832 due for pro
fessional services in completing and building an addition to an apartment-house on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Twenty-seventh Street, New York, and also for a com
mission of 2-J per cent on the estimated cost, “ according to the schedule of the Institute of Architects,” for making pre
liminary studies, general drawings and specifications for a proposed building on Thirty-seventh Street, which was not carried out. The estimated cost of this building was $425,000,
and the commission claimed amounted to $10,625. In regard to this charge, Mrs. Stevens claimed that the plans were
merely an adaptation of some made for another person, and
that the service was volunteered, Mr. Gilman having told her
Fig. 36. Town-hall at Rothenburg.
represented at Nuremberg by numerous and beautiful exam
ples ; this is the Frauentlior, one of the most curious of the gates of the old imperial city (Figure 40).
[ To be continued.]
ARCHITECT, OWNER & BUILDER BEFORE THE LAW. 1 —VIII.
TWO MORE NEW YORK CASES.
B
ESIDES the last two cases, two more may be given, both from New York, which will illustrate what seems to be the
difference in the way of looking at such matters in the same
State, between an inferior court some fifteen years ago, and the highest court in the State ten years later.
that the plans “should cost her nothing,” and she set up a counter-claim against Mr. Gilman for $20,000 for negligence in his work on the Twenty-seventh Street house, alleging that, “ n consequence of negligence and want of skill and attention on the part of the plaintiff, the said building was not constructed in a strong and substantial manner. . . . The mate
rials used in and about the construction of the same were not of the best character, and the work and labor upon the same were not faithfully performed, and that, in consequence thereof, the said building is less in value by the sum of $20,000 and
upwards than it should be if the plaintiff had performed his agreement and discharged his duty in the premises.”
The defendant’s son-in-law testified that “certain arches
over the store-windows in the first floor were weak, so that he
1 Continued from No. 819, page 147.
5 Gilman vs. Stevens, 54 N. Y., P. R., 197.