This suit is based upon a contract made between G. S. Glenn and the appellee school district. Appellant, Barton, alleges that for a valuable consideration the said Glenn assigned to him the written contract which forms the basis of this suit.' It appears that Glenn is an architect, and that he entered into a contract with the board of trustees for said school district on the 20th day of August, 1929, to furnish all necessary sketches; *940 plans, blueprints, and specifications for tbe erection and completion of a school building at a site to be selected by tbe school trustees, and also agreed to superintend tbe building until its completion and to assist in getting tbe best and cheapest bid for tbe erection of tbe building. In consideration of bis services, tbe trustees of tbe district agreed to pay him 5 per cent, in two installments of 3 per cent, and 2 per cent, respectively.

Tbe appellant prayed in the alternative for judgment upon a quantum meruit.

It is undisputed that tbe contract with Glenn was made before tbe election for tbe issuance of bonds bad been held, and at a time when there was no money in tbe treasury for tbe purpose of constructing a school building, and tbe first amended petition upon which tbe case was tried fails to allege that tbe defendant district had available moneys from any source out of which bis demand, if established, could be paid. Tbe election at which tbe district voted upon the proposed bond issue was not held until September 22, 1929, and it is not shown that there was any money available for building purposes in that district. Tbe trustees did not use tbe plans and specifications submitted by Glenn, nor is it shown that they accepted or adopted tbe plans and specifications at any time.

In view of tbe recent decision of the Commission of Appeals in tbe ease of Harlingen Independent School District v. C. H. Page & Bro., 48 S.W.(2d) 983, it becomes our duty to affirm the judgment of tbe trial court. Tbe Page Case, as decided by tbe San Antonio 'Court of Civil Appeals, is reported in 23 S.W. '(2d) 829, and involves tbe main question presented in tbe instant case. In view of tbe decision by tbe Commission of Appeals in that case which decides tbe questions before us ••adversely to tbe appellant’s contention, it is unnecessary for us to discuss at length the •contentions in this case.

Upon tbe authority of tbe Page Case, we. affirm tbe judgment.