Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cuthbert v. Fortune

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided May 5, 1934No. 31,626Published

1DissentDawson, J.

Where the electors of a taxing district are called to vote on a proposition to issue bonds for the erection of a public building there is no practical way of advising them on the matter requiring their decision except by the preparation .of tentative architectural plans and estimates, and it is both sensible and customary to have these prepared and submitted by an architect who hopes to be employed if the bonds carry, and he- prepares and makes such preliminary plans and estimates with full understanding that such preliminary services are not to be paid for. I see nothing wrong in such a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Plummer v. AshSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  2. Fackler v. FordSupreme Court of Kansas · 1858

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API