Malone v. Phila. & Reading R. R.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 102, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of G. P. Lancaster Co., June T., 1890, No. 19, on verdict for plaintiffs, R. A. Malone & Sons. Assumpsit for balance alleged to be due under contract to enlarge tunnel and build bridge.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 102, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of G. P. Lancaster Co., June T., 1890, No. 19, on verdict for plaintiffs, R. A. Malone & Sons. Assumpsit for balance alleged to be due under contract to enlarge tunnel and build bridge. Before McMullen, J. At the trial it appeared that, by agreement in writing, dated May 21, 1889, plaintiffs contracted to do all the work in the enlargement of the Manayunk and Phcenixville tunnels, with the approaches to the same, together with a stone arch bridge across the Schuylkill river at the north end of the Phcenixville tunnel. Plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Dean,
The plaintiffs, by a written agreement with defendant, on 21st of May, 1889, contracted to do the grading, rock-cutting, masonry and other work required in the enlargement of Manayunk and Phoenixville tunnels, and approaches to same, also certain work upon the stone arch bridge across the Schuylkill at north end of Phoenixville tunnel. The work was to be done in a workmanlike manner according to elaborate plans and specifications which formed part of tile agreement, under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, defendants’ chief engineer, all to be completed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Vicary v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by12 opinions
- Knight v. Gulf Refining CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Achenbach v. StoddardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Robert Grace Contracting Co. v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Anstead v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Producers Coke Co. v. HooverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.