Osbourn v. Magee Carpet Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 16, March T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Columbia Co., May T., 1915, No. 40, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Millard P. Osbourn v. Magee Carpet Company. Assumpsit for a balance alleged to be due under an oral contract of employment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 16, March T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Columbia Co., May T., 1915, No. 40, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Millard P. Osbourn v. Magee Carpet Company. Assumpsit for a balance alleged to be due under an oral contract of employment. Before Evans, P. J. At the trial the plaintiff testified that he was a consulting engineer and that he had by a parol contract agreed to make an investigation and examination of the plant of the defendant, and to make a report as to the propriety of certain installations therein. For this he was to receive $500. He further testified…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
A study of the material facts of the case at bar, as detailed in the evidence and established by the verdict, leads to the conclusion it is practically ruled by Szok v. Crown, 33 Pa. Superior Ct. 612. It readily distinguishes itself from Bernstein v. Hirsch, 33 Pa. Superior Ct. 87, and our more recent case of United States Casualty Co. v. Charles E. Mather in which an opinion has this day been handed down.
The pleadings disclose that the real contest between the parties was the extent and character of the work to be performed by the plaintiff. There is no dispute that an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bernstein v. HirschSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Szok v. CrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cosmo Dress, Inc. v. Perlstein Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Carl v. Carl, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Columbia County1923
- Osterling v. RoseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926