Bishop Buddy Scrapbook 1941-1945

11

Bishop Wins Case , Cour Architectural Contest of Long-Standing Concluded Last Saturday Noon After Session of 4½ Da~·s; Nicholas J. Martin and William P. Mahedy, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law, Represented the Bishop of San Diego The petition of John C. Broderick of Pasadena was rejected in the Superior Court of Judge Charles C. Haines m a decision handed down last Saturday morning. Mr. Broderick claimed that certain fees totaling $6,180 were due him on account of blueprints and al- leged engineering data which he submitted in connection with work for the new St. Joseph's Cathedral. Broderick, represented by his attorney Patrick Henry Ford of Los Angeles, brought suit against the-------------------------------- Roman Catholic Bishop of San Di- mediately claimed on behalf of the used on the mausoleum window. Bishop that other things were to The testimony indicates that about ego for this $6,180 claiming in his first count $l,S00 a s a be performed which had not been a quarter of the cost of the win• b a I a 11 c e due upon an alleged performed to date; that is to say, dow would be, from the stand• that he was to have the benefit of point of the defendant, considered "account stated" and the full $6,- some work which would be useful resonable for that purpose. Dr, 180 in a second count upon an I in obtaining a permit from the Broderick believes that he shouli alleged "quantum meruit." He added to his action a claim in a city. That is implied, at least, in be allowed $350. I think that i1 the letter which he caused Father largely excessive under the cir• third count for $350 for design- Stack to write under date of Feb- cumstances and there being som• ing :;t mausoleum window, and a further claim in a fourth count ruary 27, 1940, asking for blue- evidence of disinterested partie, prints for use. It is implied also here I think I will fix the amounl I for $1,500 for preparing a vellum in the further communication of that ought to be allowed at $40 inscription. The aggregate amount February 29, 1940, in which the which is just a little over on, I claimed by Bl'Oderick was, there- book of engineering figures was quarter of the full cost of th, fore, $8,030. 1 , asked, the receipt of the blueprints window from the g ass artisan. ' I '!'he suit was filed in lhe Super- being acknowledged. The next No reco~ery was granted th1 ior Court of San Diego -county, thing we have of importance in the Bishop on his cross-complaint filec July 31 , 1940 - The case began in matter is this letter of Mr. Brod- with his answer. The Court endec Department 2 of Superior Court, erick's to the Bishop in which he Tuesday morning, October 28, says: 'As I explained to Monsig- 1941, at ten o'clock, and conclud- nor Hegarty, I wish to check the ed last Saturday noon, at which drawings and put them in good time the Hon. Charles C. Haines form in order that you will have his decision with the statemen· that "The result of all of this wil be that apparently ]\fr. Brodericl will be entitled to judgment fo1 $40 without any costs."

"The issues in this case so far as the complaint is concerned have been reduced to considerable sim- plicity by the elimination of the second and fourth causes of action, so that there remain only the first cause of action and the third. "The first cause of action pur-

"I do therefore, that a technical account stated can be made out on the basis of this letter of February 23, 1940. It not believe,

h

was disagreed to by the Bis op, "'•orts to be for an account stated at least impliedly, in the corre- on which it is claimed that there f • spondence which has been re er- is a balance due of $1,SOO. If red to, and that disagreement was there be any such accc unt stated . If . d be'ng correct 1tse recognize as 1 it must obviously result from a in this letter by Mr. Broderick of I certain letter written by Mr. Brod-1 March l, 1940. In other words, it erick to Bishop Buddy under date could not longer be regarded as a 1 of February 23, 1940, in which he t t t t f balance· due correc s a emen o a bills the Bishop for "pe1·sonal serv- for work done prior to February ices to date, total as per agree- 23 1940 and that is what it pur- ment, $2,920, less paid on account I po~ted t~ be, and that is the only $550, balance $2,370.'' basis on which it could be used "Undoubtedly it is the law that as a basis for an account stated an account submitted by one clai'.11- in the technical sense of that term. ing an indebtedness was due to him Consequently, I do not believe by another which remains unob- that the technical basis for the jected to for a reasonable time first count of the complaint is becomes an ackowledgement of made out.

•

indebtedness by the debtor even though he has not assented to it expressly. The question is whether this writing has assumed that status. I gather undoubtedly that this communication was written with the idea of so interpreting the conversation had in Monsignor Hegarty's office as to amount to an accord which it was hoped would be followed by a satisfac- tion. "The doctrine of accord and satisfaction is not quite the same as the doctrine of an account stated,an d what is relied on in the complaint is not accord and satis- faction because there is no satis- faction according to the complaint, but an account' stated. Now, an account stated simply means a statement made of a balance ag1·eed to by both parties consti- tuting a new contract contradistin- guished from contracts which pre- ceded it. It appears, however, that instead of having been agreed to as rendered, that is as an account for services to date, the date be· ing February 23, 1940, it was im•

"Now, when you come to a more equitable consideration of the situ- ation as to what was really the agreement, it is possible that there was some misunderstanding be- tween the parties, that their minds did not fully meet; and I think it is perfectly clear that the Bishop understood that for the money which he proposed to pay he was to have plans which would result in a permit from the city to com- plete the structure; so that I am constrained to believe that the re- liance on the account stated is not I technically made out and that there was not such a meeting of the minds as would require that the technical situation be supple- mented by any consideration of equities which would in any wise change what it actually appears to be. That seems to me to be con- 1 elusive against a recovery on the I ftrst count. "I think it appears to be ack- knowledged as to the second count that there ought to be some con- sideration to Mr. Broderick for the

It is expected that the decisiOI of Judge Haines will serve as a plececlent for many years to comt in such cases.

rendered his decision after having heard complete evidence from both sides, arg;uments and rebuttals. All the counts w er e dispos.:id of to the entire satisfaction of the Bishop. Broderick was represented by attorney Patrick Henry Ford of Los Angeles and Messrs. Pfanstiel & Fox of San Diego. The Bishop had for counsel Nicholas J. Martin and William P. Mahedy, eminent Catholic attorneys of San Diego. After the testimony of the plain- tiff was completed, he dismissed the second count. At the com- mencement of the trial he had dis- missed the fourth count. This left only the first and third counts. The $1,500 claim the Court re- jected holding that Broderick was entitled to nothing. Of the $350 claimed by Brod- erick for some Celtic lettering in the Saint Patrick window or tran- som in the Mausoleum Chapel at Holy Cross Cemetery, he was al- lowed only $40 without costs. The full decision of Judge Haines upon Bl'Oderick's complaint follows:

all the information and data re- quired to proceed with the work of construction. This is necessary in order to prevent confusion and for the protection of our mutual interests.' Also he goes on to say: 'I am pushing the work as fast as possible and will forwa,·d the blueprints of each sheet as soon as the} are finished. The blue- prints sent you the other day will then be laid aside and the com- pleted working drawings used for] actual use. The engineering data j was mailed yesterday. There will be of course no extra cost to you I for the final drawings as per our I agreement.' "Now, it seems to me that the I least that can be said about this letter is that it wa• an acquiescence in a condition on the part of the Bishop that the $2,370 referred I to in the letter of February 23, I 1940, was not to be paid for serv- ices rendered to that date. In other I words, that it was an acknowl- I edgement on the part of Mr. Brod- I erick that other work was to be done which had not been done at the date of the rendition of this · statement of February 23, 1940, as a. part of the agreement between the parties.

•