Monocacy Bridge Co. v. American Iron Bridge Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks county: Of January Term 1876, No. 219. Covenant by the American Iron Bridge Manufacturing Company against the Monocacy Bridge Company. Defendants pleaded covenants performed, absque hoc. The facts were these: On the 22d of April 1870, the defendants advertised for proposals to be received on the 7th of May following for the erection of a bridge of wrought iron over the Schuylkill river near Monocacy Furnace.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks county: Of January Term 1876, No. 219. Covenant by the American Iron Bridge Manufacturing Company against the Monocacy Bridge Company. Defendants pleaded covenants performed, absque hoc. The facts were these: On the 22d of April 1870, the defendants advertised for proposals to be received on the 7th of May following for the erection of a bridge of wrought iron over the Schuylkill river near Monocacy Furnace. By the terms of this advertisement the bridge was “ to be of sufficient strength and warranted to carry a load of one ton to each lineal foot,…
1Opinion of the Court
This case was originally argued at Harrisburg, on the 3d of June 1876, Sharswood and Williams, JJ., being absent. An opinion therein ivas delivered by Gordon, J., on the 6th of November following, affirming the judgment. On the 24th of the same month the plaintiffs in error asked for a re-argument, which on the same day was ordered, Mercur and Gordon, JJ., dissenting. The case was re-argued on the 26th of February 1877, by the same counsel, and *523on the 7th of May 1877 Mr. Justice Sharswood delivered the following opinion:—
We are of opinion that there was error in the rejection of the evidence…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Filbert v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Otis Elevator Co. v. Flanders Realty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Shultz v. SeibelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904