Appeal, No. 152, April T., 1956, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, June T., 1956, No. 141, in case of Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. v. Philip Chambers et ux. Judgment affirmed.
Lee C. McCandless, with him M. D. Furman, for appellants.
Saul J. Bernstein, with him Bernstein & Campbell, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 635]
The business of the plaintiff corporation is the furnishing of engineering services as consultants and
[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 636]
otherwise. Michael Baker, Jr., its president and majority stockholder is a registered engineer. The corporation has an architectural department which it maintains as an adjunct to its engineering business and has in its employ one Joseph F. Bontempo, duly qualified and registered for the practice of architecture in Pennsylvania, in accordance with the Act of July 12, 1919, P.L. 933, as amended, 63 PS § 21 et seq. Bontempo is the "head architect" in charge of his department. Under an agreement with the corporation what he receives from the plaintiff, his employer, is measured by the architectural commissions executed by him.
Defendants who own a residence property in the Borough of Zelienople, contemplated certain alterations and repairs to their home. On May 21, 1949, they contacted the plaintiff corporation by telephone and inquired whether architectural services could be supplied. Their inquiry was referred to Joseph F. Bontempo who called upon the defendants. After consulting with them they agreed to pay plaintiff the actual cost of the architectural services to be rendered by Bontempo and his assistants in developing preliminary plans embodying the desired changes.
Studies, sketches and drawings were made by Bontempo which if developed into final plans and specifications, according to an estimate, would have cost about $45,000 to execute. When submitted to the defendants they refused to approve them. At the trial of this case their contention was that their agreement contemplated changes in the building that could be made for no more than $25,000 and that since the estimates for performance of the work exceeded that sum they were not liable in any amount. The jury however resolved that question in favor of the plaintiff, although the verdict against the defendants was for
[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 637]
but $604.81 of a total of $1,209.62 claimed as the cost of ...