Bruck v. Mausbury
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court, of Common Pleas of Somerset county: Of July Term 1882, No. 163. Assumpsit, by William B. Mausbury against Ludwiclc Brack, to recover the price of work done under a parol contract. The defendant died after service, and an alias summons was served on his administrator Conrad Brack, who pleaded nonassuinpsit, payment with leave etc., and set off.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court, of Common Pleas of Somerset county: Of July Term 1882, No. 163. Assumpsit, by William B. Mausbury against Ludwiclc Brack, to recover the price of work done under a parol contract. The defendant died after service, and an alias summons was served on his administrator Conrad Brack, who pleaded nonassuinpsit, payment with leave etc., and set off. On the trial, before Hall, P. J., the evidence showed that the plaintiff agreed by parol with Ludwick Brack to construct for him a saw mill on his land, of a certain description, and to lay certain water pipes, within a certain time,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sterrett
The claim of plaintiff below, for work done in the erection and construction of a water power saw mill, was resisted on the ground that he had not performed his contract, in that he had not completed and put the mill in good running order ; “ that the roof was not completed, pipes not laid, and other important things, necessary to the completion of the mill, were left undone.” There was some conflict of testimony as to the terms of the verbal agreement under which the work was done, but the main question for the jury was whether the contract had been substantially performed by plaintiff, and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hoffman v. Bloomsburg & Sullivan R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Smullin v. HarenskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Parnell v. Saltsburg Joint School BoardSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960