Since the provision in a contract which requires the certificate of the architect or engineer as a condition precedent is intended to leave the determination of the matter specified in the contract to the judgment of the architect or engineer, such provision can not be ignored and the contractor can not recover without producing such certificate, merely by showing a difference in judgment between the architect and the contractor, or even by showing that the judgment of the architect or engineer does not coincide with the judgment of the court or the jury.1

The action of the architect in granting or in refusing a certificate will not be conclusive, however, if it is shown that he acted through mistake of the requisite degree.2 What degree of mistake is requisite to produce this result, is a question upon which the courts have not agreed, at least in their outward form of statement. In some jurisdictions it is said that the action of the architect or engineer will not be final in case of gross mistake,3 which is so gross as to imply bad faith,4 or as to amount to constructive fraud,5 or as to establish gross negligence on his part.6 In other jurisdictions it is said that the action of the architect or engineer will not be conclusive if the certificate is given under a clear mistake of fact,7 or in clear violation of an express provision of the contract.8 The action of the architect or engineer is not conclusive if it is taken under a clear misconstruction of the provisions of the contract.9 The act of the architect or engineer in granting or refusing a certificate because of a misconstruction of the classification of material made in the contract,10 or because through mistake he regards certain samples and photographs as a part of the contract,11 or because through misconstruction of the contract he regards the contractor as responsible for a successful result, and not merely for compliance with plans and specifications,12 is not conclusive as between the parties to the contract. If the engineer or contractor misinterprets the contract as giving him power to pass upon questions upon which he was not given power to pass, his action in refusing a certificate in the exercise of power thus erroneously assumed is not final.13 If the contract authorizes the architect to issue certificates for "work done and materials furnished upon the premises," the architect has no power to refuse a certificate on the ground that the contractor's delay caused injury to other work.14 A certificate that a building contract has been performed fully, does not bind the owner if a heating apparatus provided for by the contract has not been furnished.15

4 Hebert v. Dewey, 191 Mass. 403, 77 N. E. 822; Ashley v. Henahan, 66 0. S. 559, 47 N. E. 573.

5 Ashley v. Henahan, 56 0. S. 559, 47 N. E. 573.

6 Ashley v. Henahan, 56 O. S. 559, 47 N. E. 573.

1 Boston Store v. Schleuter, 83 Ark. 213, 114 S. W. 242; Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. Brennan, 174 Ind. 1, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 85, 87 N. E. 215, 90 N. E. 65; Hebert v. Dewey, 191 Mass, 403, 77 X. E. 822; Tacoma & Eastern Lumber Co. v. Field, 100 Wash. 79, 170 Pac. 360.

2 United States. United States v. Walsh, 115 Fed. 697.

Arkansas. Carlile v. Corrigan, S3 Ark. 136, 103 S. W. 620; Boston Store v. Schleuter, 88 Ark. 213, 114 S. W. 242.

Kansas. Edwarda v. Hartshorn, 72 Kan. 19, 1LR.A. (N.S.) 1050, 82 Pac 520.

New Jersey. Bond v. Newark, 19 N. J. Eq. 376.

New York. Glacius v. Black, 50 N. Y. 145, 10 Am. Rep. 449.

Tennessee. McEwen v. Nashville, (Tenn. Ch. App.), 36 S. W. 968.

Virginia. Norfolk, etc., Ry. v. Mills, 91 Va. 613. 22 S. E. 556.

Washington. Tacoma & Eastern Lumber Co. v. Field, 100 Wash. 79, 170 Pac. 360.

West Virginia. Vaughan Const. Co. v. Virginia Ry. Co., 82 W. Va. 658, 97 S. E. 278.

3 Carlile v. Corrigan, 83 Ark. 136, 103 S. W. 620; Boston Store v. Schleuter, 88 Ark. 213, 114 S. W 242; Edwards v. Hartshorn, 72 Kan. 19, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1050, S2 Pac 520.

4 Carlile v. Corrigan, 83 Ark. 136, 103 S. W. 620; Boston Store v. Schleu-ter, 88 Ark. 213, 114 S. W. 242; Edwards v. Hartshorn, 72 Kan. 19, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1050, 82 Pac. 520; Vaughan Const. Co. v. Virginian Ry. Co., 82 W. Va. 658, 97 S E. 278.

Gross mistake, amounting to bad faith, prevents the decision of the engineer from being final. Edwards v. Hartshorn, 72 Kan. 19, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1050, 82 Pac. 520.

5 Tacoma & Eastern Lumber Co. v. Field, 100 Wash. 79, 170 Pac. 360.

6 Seaside v. Randies, - Or. -, 180 Pac. 319.

7 United States. United States v. Walsh, 115 Fed. 697, 52 C. C. A. 419.

Illinois. Barbee v. Findlay, 221 Ill. 251, 77 X. E. 590 (obiter); Snead v. Merchants' Loan & Trust Co., 225 Ill. 442, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 80 N. E. 237.

Kansas. Edwards v. Hartshorn, 72 Kan. 19, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1050, 82 Pac. 520.

Kentucky. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Manion, 113 Ky. 7, 101 Am. St. Rep. 345, 67 S. W. 40.

New Jersey. Bond v. Newark, 19 N. J. Eq. 376.

New York. Glacius v. Black, 50 N.

T. 145, 10 Am. Rep. 449.

Tennessee McEwen v. Nashville (Tenn. Ch. App.), 36 S. W. 968.

Virginia. Norfolk, etc., Ry. v. Mills, 91 Va. 613, 22 S. E. 556.

8 Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. Brennan, 174 Ind. 1, 30 L. R. A. (N.S:) 85, 87 N. E. 215, 90 N. E. 65; Norfolk, etc., Ry. v. Mills, 91 Va. 613, 22, S. E. 556.

9 Illinois. Snead v. Merchants' Loan & Trust Co., 225 Ill. 442, 9L.R.A. (N.S.) 1007, 80 N. E. 237.

Indiana. Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. Brennan, 174 Ind. 1, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 85, 87 N. E. 215, 90 N. E. 65.

Missouri. Williams v. Chicago, S. F. & C. Ry., 112 Mo. 463, 34 Am. St. Rep. 403, 20 S. W. 631.

New York. MacKnight Flintic Stone Co. v. New York, 160 N. Y. 72, 54 N. E. 661.

Wisconsin. Shine v. Hagemeister Realty Co., - Wis. -, 172 N. W. 750.

10 Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. Brennan, 174 Ind. 1, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 85, 87 N. E. 215, 90 N. E. 65; Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 463, 34 Am. St. Rep. 403, 20 S. W. 631.

11 Snead v. Merchants' Loan & Trust Co., 225 Ill. 442, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 80 N. E. 237.

Equity will give relief if the architect has been guilty of fraud or manifest error.16 If mistake exists, fraud need not also exist to entitle the party to relief.17