Chandley v. Cambridge Springs Borough
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 122, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 22, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Chandley Brothers & Co. v. Cambridge Springs Borough. Assumpsit on a construction contract. Before Wallace, P. J., specially presiding. For previous report of the case see 200 Pa. 230. At the trial the main issue between the parties was as to the responsibility for a delay of three weeks in completing the work.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 122, Jan. T., 1902, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 22, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Chandley Brothers & Co. v. Cambridge Springs Borough. Assumpsit on a construction contract. Before Wallace, P. J., specially presiding. For previous report of the case see 200 Pa. 230. At the trial the main issue between the parties was as to the responsibility for a delay of three weeks in completing the work. When W. H. Chandley, one of the plaintiffs, was on the stand, the following offer was made : Plaintiffs’ counsel propose to prove by the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Feel,
When this case was here before it was decided that the contract under which the defendant’s waterworks were constructed did not give to the engineer in charge the power to determine whether certain amounts agreed .upon in advance as liquidated damages for delay in completion should be deducted from the plaintiff’s claim. See 200 Pa. 280. At the second trial this question was submitted to the jury. Both parties were in default under the terms of the contract, the plaintiff in not completing the works in the time fixed, and the defendant in not making payments…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Colvin v. WhiteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901