Phila. ex rel. O'Rourke v. Kelly
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 494, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1889, No. 59, on verdictfor plaintiff. Sci. fas. sur municipal liens. Before Pennypacker, J. At the trial, it appeared that John O’Rourke had a contract for paving Ontario street, and that William J. Kelly was the owner of property on the line of that street.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 494, Jan. T., 1894, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1889, No. 59, on verdictfor plaintiff. Sci. fas. sur municipal liens. Before Pennypacker, J. At the trial, it appeared that John O’Rourke had a contract for paving Ontario street, and that William J. Kelly was the owner of property on the line of that street. O’Rourke and Kelly entered into the following agreement in writing: “ Whereas John O’Rourke has -entered into a contract with the city of Philadelphia to pave Ontario street between Frank-ford road and Tulip street with Belgian blocks, as a…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam:,
An examination of the record, with special reference to the several specifications, has failed to convince us that there is any substantial error in the rulings of-the learned trial judge. Neither of the specifications is sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- President of the Roman Catholic Church of Ascension v. PerchéSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1884