McCloskey v. Marks
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 208, Jan. T., 1918, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1917, No. 3306, on verdict for defendant in case of Matthew H. McCloskey, Jr., and Emil F. Bahls, trading as McCloskey & Bahls, v. Clarence L. Marks. Assumpsit to recover balance alleged to be due upon a. building contract. Before Carr, J. Verdict and judgment'for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 208, Jan. T., 1918, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1917, No. 3306, on verdict for defendant in case of Matthew H. McCloskey, Jr., and Emil F. Bahls, trading as McCloskey & Bahls, v. Clarence L. Marks. Assumpsit to recover balance alleged to be due upon a. building contract. Before Carr, J. Verdict and judgment'for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed. Error assigned was portion of charge quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The contract did not by its terms commit to the sole decision of the architect the determination of any extension of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Simpson,
On September 29, 1916, plaintiffs contracted to erect for defendant a building, which was to be divided into stores on the first floor, and offices above. By the terms of the contract it was provided in Article VI that one of the stores should be completed on or before January 1, 1917, and the rest of the work before January 15, *4431917; and that, for each and every day’s delay thereafter, “the contractors are to pay to the owner the sum of $20 .per day as liquidated damages, and not as a penalty, the amount to be deducted from the contractors final payments.”…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Jackson v. McKeesportSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Pyles, Exrx. v. Bosler, Exrx.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Bizet v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- School District No. 1 v. HowardWyoming Supreme Court · 1935