Bingaman v. City of Pittsburgh
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 47, Oct. T., 1892, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1892, No. 555, dismissing a bill in equity. Bill in equity by C. F. Bingaman against the city of Pittsburgh and J. J. Booth and William F. Flinn, contractors. The main averments of the bill were similar to those in Donley v. Pittsburgh, supra. Other averments are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The bill filed in this case differs from the bill in Whitney’s Appeal, in the fact that a part of the work was for paving the sidewalk, of which plaintiff claims he should have been notified, and was not, prior to the letting of the contract. He contends that, under the act of April 18,1857, P. L. 240, and § 17 of the act of April 1, 1868, P. L. 569, the city should have given *354him notice to do this work, and should not have included it in the contract for paving and curbing the avenue. These questions have been disposed of in Donley’s Appeal and Whitney’s Appeal, decided herewith.
Th…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Howell v. Morrisville BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- New Brighton Borough v. BiddellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Omega StreetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Amberson AvenueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Twenty-eighth StreetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.