8 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEKS 



building operations were proceeding, caused the plans to be 

 submitted for the first time to the principal engineer, who at 

 once condemned them as dangerous to the tunnel. As Briggs 

 insisted on proceeding, an action was brought for an injunction 

 to restrain him. It was held that the approval of the 

 company's resident engineer was not binding on the company, 

 the Court being satisfied that Briggs knew that Brunei was 

 the principal engineer. In giving judgment, Sir W. P. Wood, 

 V.-C., said: "It would be carrying the doctrine of acquiescence 

 beyond all precedent to hold the company bound by Hewitt's 

 verbal approbation. If indeed Brunei had said so, if the 

 plans had been laid before Brunei, and he had approved of 

 them, although verbally only, the Court might have refused 

 to assist the company ; or if Brunei had on the spot verbally 

 sanctioned the defendant's proceedings, the Court might have 

 declined to act on the difference between a verbal and a written 

 consent, for the permission would, at any rate, have been 

 given by the agent specially appointed for the express 

 purpose. . . . The evidence of Brunei as to the danger to 

 be apprehended from Briggs' plan was entirely unshaken " 

 (Attorney-General v. Briggs, 1855, 1 Jur. 1084). The moral 

 of this case is that the powers and duties of a resident 

 engineer should be clearly laid down in the contract. When 

 a contract is submitted for his approval, the engineer should 

 also be at pains to see that his right to appoint and control 

 the resident is expressly reserved. 



