Gillespie Tool Co. v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
GRliOIi TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OF ALLEGUEN: COTJNTV. No. 80 October Term 1888, October Term 1885, C. P. No. 2. On September 7, 1885, a summons in assumpsit was served an action by the Gillespie Tool Company against R. J. Wilson and Geo. E. Tener, partners as Wilson & Tener.
Read the full summary
GRliOIi TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OF ALLEGUEN: COTJNTV. No. 80 October Term 1888, October Term 1885, C. P. No. 2. On September 7, 1885, a summons in assumpsit was served an action by the Gillespie Tool Company against R. J. Wilson and Geo. E. Tener, partners as Wilson & Tener. The affidavit of claim averred an indebtedness of defendants to the plaintiff in the sum of $6,353.50, less a credit of $1,855.20, with interest on the amount due from July 1, 1885, “being the amount due for work done and materials furnished in and about the drilling of a gas well, as per bill of items hereto…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION,
Mr. Justice Steerett:
Plaintiff company neither proved nor offered to prove such facts as would have warranted the jury in finding substantial performance of the contract embodied in the written proposition submitted to and accepted by the defendants. In several particulars the work contracted for was not done according to the plain terms of the contract. Nearly one half of the well was not reamed out, as required, to an eight inch diameter so *26as to admit 'five and five eighths inch casing in the clear. About 180 feet of the lower section of the well also was bored four or four and one…
2Cited by33 opinions
- Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
- Wright v. BarberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Morgan v. GambleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Cotherman v. Oriental Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Ehrlich v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.