The power of the architect or engineer to bind the employer, depends upon the power conferred upon him by such employer,

either in the building contract with the contractor or in the contract of employment of. such architect or engineer. Outside of such authority, the architect or engineer has not, by virtue of his position, general power to pass upon questions of fact and thereby to conclude his employer,1 or to modify terms in the contract already entered into.2 The adversary party is not precluded by the action of the architect any further than he has agreed in advance. Thus a provision requiring payment under the contract to be upon certificate but making no provision for extras, does not prevent the contractor from recovering for extras.3

7 Huekestein v. Kelly, etc., Co., 152 Pa. St. 631; 25 Atl. 747. And see Robinson v. Baird, 165 Pa. St. 505; 30 Atl. 1010.

8 Devlan v. Wells, 65 N. J. L. 213; 47 Atl. 467.

9 Lamprell v. Billericay Union, 3 Exch. 283.

10 O'Brien v. New York, 139 N. Y. 543; 35 N. E. 323.

11 Wallis Iron Works v. Park Association, 55 N. J. L. 132; 39 Am. St. Rep. 626; 19 L. R. A. 456; 26 Atl. 140.

12 Fitts v. Reinhart. 102 la. 311; 71 N. W. 227.

13Griffith v. Happersberger. 86 Cal. 605, 614; 26 Pac. 137, 487.

14 Welch v. Woodworking Co.. 61 N. J. L. 57; 38 Atl. 824; Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co. v. Williainsport, 186 Pa. St. 256; 40 Atl. 471; Por-mann v. Walsh. 97 Wis. 356; 65 Am. St. Rep. 125; 72 N. W. 881.