Legal Opinion

Borough v. Ott

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 4, 1904No. Appeal, No. 108PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal, No. 108, Oct. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1902, No. 650, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Somerset Borough v. Charles Ott and Matthew Ott, trading as Ott Brothers. Assumpsit on an award of referee. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 108, Oct. T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1902, No. 650, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Somerset Borough v. Charles Ott and Matthew Ott, trading as Ott Brothers. Assumpsit on an award of referee. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Evans, J., stated the facts to be as follows: The plaintiff, the borough of Somerset, on August 15, 1899, entered into a contract with the defendants, Ott Brothers, whereby the defendants agreed to perform certain work in…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mk. Justice Fell,

This appeal is from an order making absolute a rule for judg*542ment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in an action on the award of a referee. The defendants entered into a contract with the borough of Somerset to do certain work in connection with the improvement of borough streets and sewers. During the progress of the work, a dispute arose as to the rights of the parties under the agreement, and the work was abandoned by the contractors and was completed by the borough. The borough engineer, assuming to act under a clause of the agreement, after notice to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hostetter v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
  2. Lauman v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
  3. Chandley Bros. v. Cambridge Springs BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
  4. M'Manus v. M'CullochSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1837

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Curran v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  2. Ruch v. YorkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  3. Scholler Bros. v. Otto A. C. Hagen Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. J. S. Cornell & Son, Inc. v. RosenwaldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. Conneaut Lake Agricultural Ass'n v. Pittsburg Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API