McKay v. O'Rourke
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 252, Jan. T., 1898, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. County, June T., 1896, No. 1193, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit for breach of contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 252, Jan. T., 1898, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. County, June T., 1896, No. 1193, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Willson, J. At the trial it appeared that the contract was in writing as follows: “ Philadelphia, August 13, 1895. “ This agreement made this day between Michael O’Rourke, general contractor of Philadelphia, of the first part, and George McKay & Company, general contractors of the same city, of the second part, witnesseth: The party of the first part agrees to furnish all the labor and material necessary to do…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
By the contract between the parties, the appellant agreed “ to furnish all the labor and material necessary to do the paving on the Allegheny avenue bridge .... now in course of construction according to the city’s specifications,” etc., the appellees “to furnish all blocks necessary for the work,” and the agreement to apply only to the contract which plaintiffs, appellees, “ have with Jones, Pollard & Company for block pavement.”
The question in dispute is whether the appellant’s part under this contract included laying the foundation of bituminous concrete on…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Wathen v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963