Halferty v. Marsch
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 123, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from final order of O. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1914, No. 812, making absolute plaintiff’s rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Guy Halferty, W. F. Glasser and James B. Anderson, partners, doing business as East End Construction Company, for use of John W. Thompson, v. John Marsch. Assumpsit for the recovery of a balance claimed to be due for work done by a subcontractor.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 123, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from final order of O. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1914, No. 812, making absolute plaintiff’s rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Guy Halferty, W. F. Glasser and James B. Anderson, partners, doing business as East End Construction Company, for use of John W. Thompson, v. John Marsch. Assumpsit for the recovery of a balance claimed to be due for work done by a subcontractor. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Carpenter, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Brown,
John Marsch, the appellant, had a contract with the Montour Railroad Company for the construction of a portion of its road. On March 11,1913, he entered into a written subcontract with the legal plaintiffs for certain concrete work and foundation excavations on that part of the road which he was to build. This action was brought by the use-plaintiff to recover the sum of $8,-319.65, balance alleged to be due by the defendant on the subcontract, with interest from February 20, 1914. The affidavit' of defense admits that the sum of $168.58 is due by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hackendorn Contracting Co. v. Johnstown CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924