Lancaster v. Barrett
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 19, Nov. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1892, No. 906. The action was assumpsit upon a bond given by Peter Smith Barrett as principal and William Barrett as surety to secure Richard Lancaster. Damages were averred to the amount of $2,000. Defendants pleaded '■'■non est factum.” Verdict for plaintiff for $242.16. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 19, Nov. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1892, No. 906. The action was assumpsit upon a bond given by Peter Smith Barrett as principal and William Barrett as surety to secure Richard Lancaster. Damages were averred to the amount of $2,000. Defendants pleaded '■'■non est factum.” Verdict for plaintiff for $242.16. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. Error assigned, inter alia, was as follows : 11. The court erred in refusing to affirm the latter portion of the defendant’s fifth point, as follows: “ Any alteration of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
On April 8, 1892, Peter S. Barrett, a carpenter and builder, entered into an agreement in writing with Richard Lancaster to “ erect, build, set up and finish one brick messuage or tenement with the appurtenances,” “ and compose the same with such stone and brick, timber and other materials of the size, kind and quality as particularly mentioned and set forth in the accompanying specifications (which were drawn in detail and attached to the agreement and signed by the principal parties), for the sum of $1950.”
At the same time Peter S. Barrett, as principal, and William…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bensinger v. WrenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Craighead v. McLoneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
3Cited by2 opinions
- Koch v. Moyer and BurkhartSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Moon Motel, Inc. v. Sun Insurance, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1964