Otis Elevator Co. v. Flanders Realty Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 228, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of 0. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., June Term, 1909, No. 1926, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Otis Elevator Co. v. Flanders Really Co. Assumpsit to recover a balance alleged to be due on a written contract for the installation of an elevator in defendant’s building. Before Davis, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict for plaintiff for $2,170.80, and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 228, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of 0. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., June Term, 1909, No. 1926, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Otis Elevator Co. v. Flanders Really Co. Assumpsit to recover a balance alleged to be due on a written contract for the installation of an elevator in defendant’s building. Before Davis, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict for plaintiff for $2,170.80, and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were various assignments referred to in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice Elkin,
The burden was on plaintiff to prove substantial performance of the contract in order to sustain a recovery in this action. The contract being entire there must be full or substantial performance before the liability to pay attaches. Where there has been substantial and bona fide performance of an entire contract, but failure to perform in some particulars not essential to the enjoyment of the part performed, there may be a recovery of the contract price, subject to the right of defendant to set-off damages resulting from the breach. This rule has been applied over…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Himes v. KiehlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Danville Bridge Co. v. Pomroy & ColonySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- E. B. Weed & Co. v. WeinbergerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Shoe v. MaerkySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Monocacy Bridge Co. v. American Iron Bridge Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- M. H. Walker Realty Co. v. American Surety Co. of New YorkUtah Supreme Court · 1922
- Jones v. ElliottNebraska Supreme Court · 1961
- Moss v. Best Knitting MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Formigli Corporation v. FoxDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.