Legal Opinion

Philadelphia v. Pierson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 10, 1905No. Appeal, No. 195PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal, No. 195, Jan. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 2201, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Philadelphia to use of James V. Watson, trading as Rittenhouse Quarry v. George W. Pierson and The Lincoln Savings & Trust Company. Assumpsit on a bond of a municipal contractor. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 195, Jan. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 2201, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Philadelphia to use of James V. Watson, trading as Rittenhouse Quarry v. George W. Pierson and The Lincoln Savings & Trust Company. Assumpsit on a bond of a municipal contractor. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. ■ Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

By the ordinance of the city of Philadelphia approved March 30, 1896, providing for a bond from a contractor for municipal work, to secure the prompt payment to all persons supplying him with labor or materials, whether as a subcontractor or otherwise, there is a direction that before any person shall have a right to institute suit on the bond as the *391use plaintiff, lie shall furnish such indemnity to the city against costs as shall be approved by the city solicitor. The averment in appellee’s statement of claim is that he, as use plaintiff, had, in compliance with…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ahl v. RhoadsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
  2. Columbia National Bank v. DunnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  3. Jenkins v. Rush Brook Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Statler v. United States Savings & Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Shrum v. Carcase, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County1922

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

Powered by the Exa API