Gillison v. Wanamaker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
No. 57 January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 213 June Term 1890, C. P. No. 4. On July 3, 1890, Andrew Gillison and others, trading as Gillison, Christie & Lockerbie, brought assumpsit against Thomas B. Wanamaker, to recover the sum of §698.08, with interest from November 1, 1888. The plaintiff’s statement of claim set out a contract dated April 13, 1888, between the defendant, as party of the first part, and the plaintiffs, as parties of the second part, whereby the…
Read the full summary
No. 57 January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 213 June Term 1890, C. P. No. 4. On July 3, 1890, Andrew Gillison and others, trading as Gillison, Christie & Lockerbie, brought assumpsit against Thomas B. Wanamaker, to recover the sum of §698.08, with interest from November 1, 1888. The plaintiff’s statement of claim set out a contract dated April 13, 1888, between the defendant, as party of the first part, and the plaintiffs, as parties of the second part, whereby the plaintiffs undertook to construct and complete certain alterations and additions to the dwelling-house of the defendant,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Clark:
Upon a careful examination of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim and the affidavit of defence filed, we are of opinion that the latter was sufficient to send the case to a jury. The contract provided for the erection and completion of certain alterations and additions to the defendant’s dwelling, corner of Eighteenth and Spruce, in the city of Philadelphia, under the direction of Theodore P. Chandler, an architect, according to certain plans and specifications which were made part and parcel of the contract.
The second clause of the contract provided as follows: “ It…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wagner v. Graziano Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Shultz v. SeibelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Ohse v. FiskSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880
- Ulman & Co. v. Briggs, Payne & Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1880