O'Malley v. De LaPuente
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Oct. T., 1917, No. 119, for plaintiff in case tried by the court without a jury in the suit of Michael O’Malley v. Mary A. De LaPuente. Assumpsit to collect one-half the cost of a party wall. Before Crane, J., without a jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Oct. T., 1917, No. 119, for plaintiff in case tried by the court without a jury in the suit of Michael O’Malley v. Mary A. De LaPuente. Assumpsit to collect one-half the cost of a party wall. Before Crane, J., without a jury. The facts appear by the following opinion of the court below entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $111.80: Plaintiff brought suit under the Act of February 21, 1721, and the supplements thereto, to recover from the defendant one-half of the cost of that…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, P. J.,
The plaintiff and defendant are adjoining owners of premises on Bidge avenue, Philadelphia. A controversy arose as to the liability for a reconstructed party wall and this resulted in an action by the plaintiff against the defendant, which was submitted to a judge of the Municipal Court without the intervention of a jury. The findings of fact by the trial judge are warranted by the evidence and decisive of the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s right to recover. The conclusion reached by Mm in finding in favor of the plaintiff is fully sustained by the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Moye v. MorrisonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Patterson v. DiBelle, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1952