DeHoff v. Scott
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 43, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 145, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry B. DeHoff v. Amos M. Scott. Assumpsit by an architect to recover compensation for services in preparing plans and specifications for a building. Before Bonniwell, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 43, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 145, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Harry B. DeHoff v. Amos M. Scott. Assumpsit by an architect to recover compensation for services in preparing plans and specifications for a building. Before Bonniwell, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court charged in part as follows: The duty is imposed upon you of determining from the evidence, whether the plaintiff shall recover the amount asked for or whether he shall recover nothing and your…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, P. J.,
The plaintiff brought suit to recover for services as an architect, based on the following writing, “March 25, 1916,. I propose to make plans and specifications for the addition to your hotel, S. E. Cor. Twelfth and Pine streets, for the sum of 2% per cent, of the cost; I also agree to supervise the construction of the building for the additional sum of 2y2 per cent, of the cost'; payment for the plans to be $50 cash, and the balance after bids are received,” signed by the plaintiff, and endorsed by the defendant as follows: “I accept the above agreement.” It is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Williar v. NagleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1908
- Hewitt v. WebbSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ballinger v. Howell Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Levy v. Leaseway System, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Ritter v. Harrisburg School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927