Cramp & Co. v. Boyertown Burial Casket Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 406, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1909, No. 5017, dismissing exceptions to Referee’s report in case of Cramp & Co. v. Boyertown Burial Casket Company. Assumpsit to recover the balance due on a building contract. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 406, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1909, No. 5017, dismissing exceptions to Referee’s report in case of Cramp & Co. v. Boyertown Burial Casket Company. Assumpsit to recover the balance due on a building contract. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. The contract in suit provided, inter alia, as follows: “(b) Should the contractor be obstructed or delayed in the prosecution or completion of his work by the act, neglect, delay or default of the owner, or the architects or any other contractor employed by the owner…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
This suit was brought to recover the balance due the contractor on a building, contract. The defendant claims a set off by way of liquidated damages for delay in completing the work. By agreement of the parties trial by jury was waived and the case was referred under the Act of May 14,1874, P. L. 166. In the agreement of reference it was stipulated that “the right of exception, writ of error and appeal being reserved to the parties only insofar as any question of law is concerned, it being understood and agreed that the referee’s findings of fact shall be final.”…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Nail v. BrowningSupreme Court of Florida · 1917
- Holscher v. Ingalls Stone Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917