Raff v. Isman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 300, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1908, No. 4153, on verdict for plaintiff in case of A. Raymond Raff v. Felix Isman. Assumpsit to recover balance due on a building contract. Before Barratt, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states tbe case. The court gave binding instructions for plaintiff. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $9,421.96. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 300, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1908, No. 4153, on verdict for plaintiff in case of A. Raymond Raff v. Felix Isman. Assumpsit to recover balance due on a building contract. Before Barratt, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states tbe case. The court gave binding instructions for plaintiff. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $9,421.96. Defendant appealed. Error assigned, amongst others, was in giving binding instructions for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
The defendant below offered no testimony, and, on the case as made out by the plaintiff, a verdict was directed in his favor upon which the judgment appealed from was subsequently entered. On August 3, 1907, the appellee entered into a written contract, in the city of Philadelphia, with the appellant, to provide, in accordance with certain drawings and specifications, all the materials and perform all the work for the alterations and additions to a building situated at Broad and Walnut streets, in the city of Philadelphia. The building was known as the Hepner Hair…
2Cases cited1 opinion
3Cited by9 opinions
- Joseph T. Ryerson & Son v. ShawIllinois Supreme Court · 1917
- Bala Corporation v. McGlinnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. CorbinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- American Soap Co. v. BogueOhio Supreme Court · 1926
- Critchfield & Co. v. ArmourAppellate Court of Illinois · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.