Hodges & Leach v. Pike

This is an action of assumpsit brought by the appellee, a sculptor, to recover from the appellants, architects and co-partners, for materials furnished and services rendered them in designing and modelling a statue of Lieut.-Col. Wm. H. Watson, to surmount a monument which has since been erected in the city of Baltimore to the memory of the Maryland soldiers in the war with Mexico. The erection of this monument was undertaken by the Association of the Mexican War Veterans, who, through a committee of that body, were negotiating with the appellants as architects for a design for the proposed monument.

Communication between the parties to this suit was opened June 3rd, 1901, by a letter from Mr. Hodges, one of the appellants, to the appellee, in which he said: “We are at work erecting one large monument in Mount Royal Plaza, Baltimore, and have accepted designs for another to be erected here for the Patriots of the War of 1848. * * * We would have given you a chance on the other monument, but did not then know where to find you, and I write now to know, if we give you a chance, will you enter into it heart and soul? The committee have left everything in our hands as regards the selection of a sculptor. We desire a miniature model complete in every respect; if you have the time and desire to work with us, we will send our drawings and a photograph of the General who is to be placed on the monument. Our time is limited and we must hear from you at once.” On the following day the appellee, from his home in New York, replied by letter, saying: “I appreciate your kindness in letting me into the competition.

If you will send photographs, drawings and everything pertaining to the monument, I will get you up a nice sketch immediately, so there will be ⁶⁹⁵ no waiting.” As there was no reference in Mr. Hodges’ letter to any competition, it is not apparent why the appellee used that expression, but it is clear from the testimony of both parties that there was no competition, and that question needs no discussion or consideration. Mr. Hodges says he informed the appellee that the monument could not be erected until an appropriation could be obtained from the City Council, and the design and site was approved by the Art Commission of the city, and on June ioth, 1901, he wrote the appellee, “The committee have limited us to $10,000, so you may know just how far to go with the work. The base we have estimated to. cost about $ 5,000, so you see that leaves about $5,000 for the crowning figure, and the four smaller ones at the base to be executed in bronze.” The appellee testified that he never went into any competition for this work; that he understood from Mr. Hodges’ letter that the committee had authorized Mr. Hodges to select a sculptor, and that he had selected and employed him; that he relied upon $5,000 for the sculptor’s work upon the faith of that letter, and that he would not have gone into it under that sum, because there was hardly anything in it at that; he admitted that he knew the appellants were working under a committee, but said in such cases the sculptor does not look to the committee, “but to the architect who hires you to do the work.” He also admitted that later Mr. Hodges told him there was difficulty in getting the money, and that on April 4th, 1902, while in Mr. Hodges’ office, in Baltimore, and at his request, he wrote him a letter to be shown to the committee, in which he said: “In answer to your last letter, stating that there was but $3,000 to model the Watson statue, I would state that it is impossible for me to do anything meritorious for so small a sum. I have figured out carefully what I will be able to model, and set up in bronze a ten-foot figure and find the lowest possible sum amounts to $4,000 * * * The reason I am willing to take this statue at such a small sum is that I am very much interested in it, and as I am not busy and it would be my first large commission, I should en ⁶⁹⁶ deavor to come before the public with something good, as my reputation would depend upon it.” The appellee testified that when this letter was written all the work sued for had been done, being sketching and modelling, for submission to the