Brinckle v. England
Superior Court of Delaware
Action of Assumpsit to recover architect’s fees for furnishing plans and specifications for alterations to a dwelling house of the defendant in Brandywine Hundred.
Read the full summary
Action of Assumpsit to recover architect’s fees for furnishing plans and specifications for alterations to a dwelling house of the defendant in Brandywine Hundred. At the trial, when the plaintiff rested, counsel for defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground of variance between the proof and the bill of particulars filed, in that the bill of particulars called for delivered plans and specifications while the proof showed that the plaintiff retained the ownership of the plans and specifications, merely permitting them to be used by the defendant. The court refused to order a nonsuit.
1Opinion of the CourtPennewill, C. J.
charging the jury:
Gentlemen of the jury: — In this action William D. Brinckle, the plaintiff, seeks to recover from Howell S. England, the defendant, the sum of $191, with interest from April 14, 1909, for certain plans and specifications which the plaintiff alleges that he, as architect, prepared at the request of the defendant, for certain alterations he proposed to make in his tenant house in Brandywine hundred in this county.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant told him what alterations he wished to make in his building, and asked him to prepare the plans and specifications therefor,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Maack v. SchneiderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Feltham v. SharpSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- Meade v. Collins Realty Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1950
- Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports1959