Crawford & Moyes v. McKinney
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 76, Oct. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1892, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on building contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 76, Oct. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1892, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on building contract. Before Kennedy, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiffs agreed to build a dwelling house for defendant for the sum of $2,218. Payments were to be made as follows: $200 when the foundation walls were completed, $600 when the roof was on and $700 when the plastering was done, and the balance after the house was completed in accordance with the terms of the contract, and accepted by the defendant. It was also agreed that “all…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,
If anything has been settled by the uniform ruling of this court on the subject, it is that refusal to order a compulsory nonsuit is not assignable for error: Borough of Easton v. Neff, 102 Pa. 474. This sufficiently disposes of the first specification.
The second specification charges error “in refusing defendant’s second and third points” for charge, both of which are recited therein. This offends against rule xxii, in that it embraces “more than one point; ” and is therefore a waiver of both alleged errors. But it may be remarked, in passing, that the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Corporation of Borough v. NeffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
3Cited by10 opinions
- Murtland v. EnglishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Heilwood Fuel Co. v. Manor Real Estate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Dotterer v. ScottSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Spencer v. ConradSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- B. F. Lee Co. v. ShermanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.