Monongahela Navigation Co. v. Fenlon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. These were actions of covenant against the Monongahela Navigation Company: one by Sherman Bills and George D. Foreman, and the other by James Fenlon and Joseph Patton. They involved the same principles.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. These were actions of covenant against the Monongahela Navigation Company: one by Sherman Bills and George D. Foreman, and the other by James Fenlon and Joseph Patton. They involved the same principles. The declaration set forth two several articles of agreement and specifications entered into between the parties: one for the construction by the plaintiffs of a lock and the other of a dam on the Monongahela river, alleging that -they were always ready and willing to perform, and did perform all and singular the covenants entered into by them,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
— It would be an unprofitable labour to perplex our*208selves with a separate review of the numerous errors which have been assigned; for as there are principles common to each of the cases, it is believed that all that is material may be embraced in some general propositions which cover the whole ground of controversy.
The plaintiffs, after setting forth the articles of agreement and specifications as the foundation of their suits, allege a general performance, a willingness to perform the covenants on their part; that the defendants abandoned…
2Cited by40 opinions
- Hunt v. Rousmanier's AdministratorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Williams v. Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. HockingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Canuso v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Hostetter v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.