Smart v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 320, Jan., T., 1902, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1900, No. 1332J, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Terence P. Smart and Geoige W. Kelley, Copartners, trading as T. P. Smart & Company v. Philadelphia. Assumpsit for breach of contract. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mesteezat,
The department of public works of Philadelphia was authorized by ordinance to enter into contracts for the repaying of certain streets of the city. In answer to an advertisement by the department for proposals for the work, the plaintiffs submitted a bid at which they agreed to repave a part of Wharton street. The contract was awarded to them and they were no*330tified of the fact by a letter from the chief of bureau of highways. They were also advised that the city solicitor would be notified to prepare the contract to be executed by the parties. This not having…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hepburn v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- McManus v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
3Cited by17 opinions
- Luzerne Township v. Fayette CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Chilli v. McKeesport School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Philadelphia Co. v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Downing v. Erie School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.