McManus v. Philadelphia
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 329, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No.. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1898, No. 548, sustaining exceptions to referee’s report in case of Michael McManus v. City of Philadelphia. Exceptions to report of George W. Harkins, Esq., referee. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Errors assigned were in sustaining exceptions to referee’s report.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Dean,
On August 18, 1896, plaintiff by writing contracted with defendant to do certain work in and about “ Queen Lane Reservoir,” made necessary because of original defects in the construction. By the contract he undertook to build a retaining wall around the reservoir slopes, reconstruct the outer slopes of the banks so as to change a too abrupt grade into one of two to one, and then sod the slopes. A schedule of prices was fixed; he was to receive fifty-seven cents per cubic yard for filling, twenty-two cents for excavation, $4.97 for masonry, and thirteen cents per…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Filbert v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Malone v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Hepburn v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
3Cited by8 opinions
- Canuso v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Morgan v. JohnstownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Montgomery v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- Willis Bancroft, Inc. v. Millcreek TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- McNally v. Montour RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.