Pressy v. McCornack
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 180, Jan. T., 1911, by defendant from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., Oct. T-, 1908, No- 18, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Sheridan Pressey, to the use of Stacy G-. Glauser and Edwin D. Glauser, trading as Stacy G. Glauser & Son v. Herbert McCornack. Assumpsit to recover a balance alleged to be due on a building contract. Before Hemphill, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the case turned on whether the contract had or had not been substantially performed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 180, Jan. T., 1911, by defendant from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., Oct. T-, 1908, No- 18, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Sheridan Pressey, to the use of Stacy G-. Glauser and Edwin D. Glauser, trading as Stacy G. Glauser & Son v. Herbert McCornack. Assumpsit to recover a balance alleged to be due on a building contract. Before Hemphill, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the case turned on whether the contract had or had not been substantially performed. Defendant presented these points: 4. It was proved in this case that the houses in question were 16 inches, or…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
The primary question for determination is whether the equitable doctrine of substantial performance under the terms of a building contract should be applied to the facts of the present case. The rigid rule as to strict performance may primarily be regarded as the law of Pennsylvania, but in many cases it has been relaxed in favor of the more equitable doctrine. While the cases in which substantial performance was held to apply may be said *447to be an exception to the rule, the exception is as well established as the rule itself. The doctrine was first announced by the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Filbert v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Pepper v. City of Philadelphia ex rel. HorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Danville Bridge Co. v. Pomroy & ColonySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Philadelphia v. TrippleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Holmes v. Chartiers Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Joseph Huang Julia Y. Huang v. Bp Amoco Corporation Joseph Huang Julia HuangCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Austin v. Brown Bros.Idaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Formigli Corporation v. FoxDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
- Smith v. Cunningham Piano Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Borough of Dunmore v. ConradSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.