Evidence, Opinion: experts, Materiality. Architect. Practice, Civil, Exceptions.
In an action on a quantum meruit by an architect for compensation for professional services in making preliminary plans for a building, the plaintiff, being an expert, may testify as to the value of his services and as to a universal usage among architects and builders to charge for preliminary plans one per cent of the estimated cost of the building.
In an action on a quantum meruit by an architect for compensation for professional services in making preliminary plans for a building, where the defence is that the plans were furnished by the plaintiff in a competition with the understanding that the plaintiff should receive no compensation unless his plans were accepted, evidence offered by the defendant to show that other architects submitted preliminary plans for the building in competition and the correspondence of the defendant with such other alleged competing architects should be excluded as immaterial, unless it is shown that these matters were made known to the plaintiff.
No exception lies to the exclusion of testimony which later in the trial is given by the same witness.
BY THE COURT.
The exceptions in this case relate to the admission and exclusion of evidence. The opinions of the plaintiffs as to the value of their services were competent. They were experts. The relations of the defendant to other architects, not made known to the plaintiffs, were immaterial. Other testimony, to the exclusion of which exception was taken, was given by the same witness in another part of the case, and the defendant was not injured by its exclusion. The defendant has not pointed out any error in the rulings, and we do not discover any.
Exceptions overruled with double costs.