Finn-Vipond Construction Co. v. Wolf
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 126, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Blair Co., March T., 1899, No. 62, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit. Before Lyons, P. J., of the 41st judicial district, specially presiding. It appears from the record that the defendant contended that in the latter part of July, 1898, he contracted verbally with one P. W. Finn for certain paving and curbing.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 126, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Blair Co., March T., 1899, No. 62, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit. Before Lyons, P. J., of the 41st judicial district, specially presiding. It appears from the record that the defendant contended that in the latter part of July, 1898, he contracted verbally with one P. W. Finn for certain paving and curbing. The price agreed upon was $255.10. The defendant at the time had a book account against Finn of $148.19, for hardware furnished him at defendant’s store. He was also liable on three several notes of Finn as…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
The defendant is sued by a limited company. The contract was made between the defendant and one, Finn, who claims to be a member of that company. The plaintiff says the contract was made on behalf of the company. The defendant says it was made with Finn as an individual. If Finn acted as an individual, the defendant claims to have a set-off against him, whereas, if the plaintiff partnership was the original and known contracting party, this set-off cannot be utilized. The testimony for the plaintiff shows that it was represented in the making of the contract by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Frame v. William Penn Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881