Murphy v. Liberty National Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 102, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dee. T., 1895, No. 371, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit on a building contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 102, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dee. T., 1895, No. 371, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit on a building contract. Before Collier, J. The case was previously reported in 179 Pa. 295. The facts appear by tbe opinion of the Supreme Court, and by tbe charge of tbe court below which was as follows : It is admitted that tbe plaintiffs and the defendant entered into an agreement by which the plaintiffs, Murphy & Hamilton, were to build for the defendant a substantial and fireproof building for a bank building for the sum of $50,000. It…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
There was a large amount of very intelligent and important testimony on the trial, to the effect that the cause of the falling of the arches was the weakness and insufficiency of the iron work to sustain the weight of the arches. As this was one of the questions submitted to the jury, and the verdict was in favor of the plaintiffs, it must be presumed that they found the iron work to be insufficient, and that this was the cause of the falling of the arches. A careful reading of the testimony on both sides convinces us that the finding of the verdict on that subject…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Nelson-Pedley Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Penn Bridge Co. v. City of New OrleansCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1915
- Cramp & Co. v. Central Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Luria Engineering Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. GossCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.