
    White City Electric Company, Defendant in Error, v. Maurice Fleckles, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,630.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry Olson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 10, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by the White City Electric Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Maurice Fleckles, defendant, for work done by the plaintiff on the defendant’s building. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Building and construction contracts, § 103
      
      —when evidence sufficient to show ratification of orders for extra work. In an action for extra work done by the plaintiff on the defendant’s building, evidence held sufficient to show that the defendant’s architect had authority to order the work done and that he had delegated such authority to the defendant’s manager and ratified orders given by him, and that the defendant had knowledge of and did not object to the work as done.
    2. Building and construction contracts, § 31*—when evidence sufficient to show waiver of provision for written order for extra work. In an action for extra work done by the plaintiff on the defendant’s building, evidence held to show that a provision in a written contract that all orders for extras should be in writing, had been waived.
    Edward Maher, for plaintiff in error.
    Cleland, Lee & Phelps, for defendant in error; Lester E. Lee, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.  