Legal Opinion

Hunter v. Smith

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Decided June 5, 1939No. File No. 39496Published

1Opinion of the CourtMellitz, J.

The plaintiff and the defendant Michael Smith entered into a written contract whereby the latter agreed to erect for the former a dwelling in accordance with certain plans and specifications referred to and made a part of the contract.

This action is brought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the defendant’s improper and inadequate performance of the terms of the contract in a number of particulars.

The specifications provide that the foundation is “to be ot waterproofed concrete mix 1:2:4, well spaded and tamped. Floor to be keyed into walls”; also…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. H. D. Foss & Co. v. WhiddenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  2. Erickson v. George B. H. Macomber Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  3. MacKnight Flintic Stone Co. v. Mayor of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API