THE FEES OF AN ENGINEER 11 



(Seattle v. Gilroy, 1882, 10 Ct. of Sess. Gas. (4th Ser.), 

 226), after the work was done, the builder brought in an account 

 for extras. The contract provided, in the usual way, that 

 extras should be charged for in accordance with the schedule 

 of prices. The architect was employed by the contractor, 

 after completion, to check the measurements and jobbing 

 accounts, and he consequently sued the contractor for the fees 

 for this work, which were included in the builder's accounts. 

 It was held that it is in the interest of the employer, and not 

 of the contractor, that an architect is asked to take the 

 measurements for extra works, and though, according to 

 practice, the architect's fees are included in the contractor's 

 accounts, it is only for the sake of convenience, and without 

 special employment no action by the architect will lie against 

 the contractor. The builder not being liable, it is apprehended 

 that the employer would have been held liable. It is 

 apprehended that the same principle would apply to an 

 engineer. 



5. Where remuneration depends on a contingency. Some- 

 times the right of an engineer to receive payment of his fees 

 depends on a contingency. In that case the right to payment 

 does not accrue until the contingency happens. For instance, 

 in Moffatt v. Dickson, 1853, 22 L. J. C. P. 265, the committee 

 of a lunatic asylum agreed with an architect to pay him a 

 certain sum for acting on their behalf and preparing proba- 

 tionary drawings, etc. In accordance with this agreement, 

 the plaintiff prepared certain probationary plans and drawings 

 and was prepared to submit others, when his employment was 

 discontinued. In an action against the committee he was 

 awarded 437 10s. by a jury. The Court of Appeal, however, 

 held that probationary drawings meant drawings to be 

 approved by the committee, the Commissioners, and the 

 Secretary of State ; and that, even if the visitors could contract 

 for the payment of plans not approved of, yet there was no 

 contract here which would make them liable for dismissing 

 the plaintiff. 



In another case (Moffatt v. Laurie, 1855, 24 L. J. C. P. 56), 

 where the same gentleman was plaintiff, the remuneration of 

 the architect depended upon certain land being sold for 

 building purposes. After the architect had done a consider- 

 able amount of work, but before the land was sold, the 





' i03 - 



