Wilson v. Forder
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was a scire facias upon an apportioned mechanics’ claim, by Samuel Forder against William Kooekogey, owner or reputed owner and contractor, and Clement A. Wilson, terre tenant.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was a scire facias upon an apportioned mechanics’ claim, by Samuel Forder against William Kooekogey, owner or reputed owner and contractor, and Clement A. Wilson, terre tenant. The claim was filed on the 11th February 1855, against six houses upon Eleventh street above Master street, in the city of Philadelphia, for plastering and materials, alleged to have been done and furnished under and by virtue of a special contract, for a stipulated sum, to wit, the sum of $1110, made by the said Samuel Forder with William Kooekogey, for the erection,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Lowrie, C. J.
— On the closing of the testimony of the plaintiff below, the defendant asked for a nonsuit, and we think he might well have had it on the evidence. We do not notice the reasons he assigns here; because he does not appear to have assigned any below. The court reserved the question, whether there was any sufficient evidence that the last work was done in pursuance of a special contract for a stipulated price, for the plastering of all the six houses, as alleged in the claim, and afterwards decided that there was. But we do not think so.
If…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shannon v. BroadbentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Merritt Lumber Yards, Inc. v. G. E. B. Enterprises, Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County1960