Roberts v. Sharp
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 265, Jan. T., 1894, by-defendant, John M. Sharp, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 906, making absolute rule for judgment for amount admitted to be due. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien. The facts appear by the following opinion by Arnold, J.: “ Plaintiff filed a claim for $16,640.02 for structural work done upon the Hotel Metropole under a contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 265, Jan. T., 1894, by-defendant, John M. Sharp, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1893, No. 906, making absolute rule for judgment for amount admitted to be due. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien. The facts appear by the following opinion by Arnold, J.: “ Plaintiff filed a claim for $16,640.02 for structural work done upon the Hotel Metropole under a contract. “ The contract price was .... $23.455 00 “ Plaintiff also claims for extra work . 185 02 “ Making a total of .... $23,640 02 “ And allows credit for cash received on account, 7,000 00 “ Leaving a balance…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The very object of the act of 1893 was to enable judgment to be entered for the amount admitted to be due without pre*189judice to the plaintiff’s right to proceed to trial for the recovery of the balance of the demand. No distinction between, or separation of, items of the demand was within the language or proper meaning of the act, and as it provides that judgment may be taken for the amount admitted to be due, and authorizes a trial for “ the balance of the demand,” we consider that it is of no consequence to determine how the amount is ascertained or how the balance is composed.
Judg…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cain v. RedlichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- City of New Castle v. New Castle Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Tack v. Augustine, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County1966