Medoff v. Effenberg
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 49, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1912, No. 1,931, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Barnett J. Medoff v. Louis Effenberg and Abraham Korobov, trading as Diamond Knitting Mills. Assumpsit by an architect for compensation for services.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 49, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1912, No. 1,931, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Barnett J. Medoff v. Louis Effenberg and Abraham Korobov, trading as Diamond Knitting Mills. Assumpsit by an architect for compensation for services. Before Audenried, J. From the record it appeared that plaintiff in his statement of claim sought to recover the sum of two and one-half per cent on $22,000, the cost of the erection of a building. At the trial plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that he was wrongfully discharged before the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
There are but two assignments of error and they are directed to the alleged error of the court in allowing the plaintiff to recover a quantum meruit for his services.
The first assignment is as to the admission of evidence and offends against our Rule XVI which provides, “When the error assigned is to the admission or rejection of evidence, the specification must quote the questions or offers, the ruling of the court thereon, and the evidence admitted or rejected, together with a reference to the page of the paper-book or appendix where the matter may be found in its…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- National Bank v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Beaver Borough v. Beaver Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Rotograph Co. v. CressmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Martin v. StongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908