Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Kusminsky

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 1926No. Appeal, 8PublishedCited by 11 opinions

As to inclusion of objectionable items: Lytle, Campbell & Co. v. Somers, Fitter & Todd, 276 Pa. 409.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb. Justice Walling,

In August, 1921, defendants, béing desirous of converting their residence in Sharon into a two-family apartment, made a verbal agreement with plaintiffs, who were contractors and builders, to furnish all material and do the work necessary for the purpose. It was to be done at cost plus fifteen per cent, and was started about the first of September and completed in December, 1921. The first bill for $666.07 was presented on September 17th and promptly paid. Other bills presented later, from time to time as the work progressed, were not paid and, after completion,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Lytle, Campbell & Co. v. Somers, Fitler & Todd Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  2. Klinefelter v. BaumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  3. Murphy v. BearSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  4. St. Clair Coal Co. v. MartzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
  5. Fahnestock v. SpeerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Citizens State Bank v. GentryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  2. House v. FissellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
  3. Artsmith Development Group, Inc. v. UpdegraffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Negley B. Calvin, Inc. v. CornetMissouri Court of Appeals · 1968
  5. Kelley v. DunneSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1974

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API