Ligget v. Smith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Mleghany county. This was an action of covenant, in which George Smith was plaintiff and Thomas Ligget defendant, below. It was brought on articles of agreement, dated the 13th of September 1830, by which the plaintiff below undertook to build the brick work of a warehouse for the defendant.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Mleghany county. This was an action of covenant, in which George Smith was plaintiff and Thomas Ligget defendant, below. It was brought on articles of agreement, dated the 13th of September 1830, by which the plaintiff below undertook to build the brick work of a warehouse for the defendant. The articles contained the following clause : “ and said Smith doth further agree to fill in all the brick work with mortar, or what is generally termed flushing in, or filling in all the openings in each corner of brick with mortar as they are laid.” The plaintiff failed to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
Previous to the decision of Boone v. Eyre, 1 H. B. 273, note (a), it seems to have been taken that nothing less than entire performance of a mutual covenant would entitle the party to his action for a breach on the other side. In that case, however, a more reasonable and just rule was adopted, by which a mutual or dependent covenant, which goes but to a part of the consideration on both sides, and whose breach may be compensated in damages, is to be treated exactly as if it were separate and independent. This is distinctly the principle;'…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Harlan v. StufflebeemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Pressy v. McCornackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Danville Bridge Co. v. Pomroy & ColonySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Dailey v. GreenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Typhoon Air Conditioning Co. v. FriedSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.