West Homestead Borough v. Erbeck
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 160, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Second Term, 1908, No. Ill, on verdict for plaintiff in case of West Homestead Borough v. F. J. Erbeck. Trespass for deceit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 160, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Second Term, 1908, No. Ill, on verdict for plaintiff in case of West Homestead Borough v. F. J. Erbeck. Trespass for deceit. Before Shafer, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court and by the previous report of the case in 230 Pa. 316. Defendant presented the following points: 1. That under the pleadings and evidence in the case, the verdict of the jury must be in favor of the defendant. Answer: Refused. (1) 2. That the plaintiff by its evidence in the case, has failed to show any tort on the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
This was an action of trespass in which the Borough of West Homestead sought to recover damages for deceit practiced upon it by the defendant, in the performance of certain work under a contract for grading, paving, curbing and improving streets. Under the specifications the work was to be done to the satisfaction of the borough engineer, and the compensation of the contractor was dependent on the estimates of the engineer. In its statement of claim the borough charges that de*196fendant did not perform the work in various particulars enumerated, according to the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- High v. BerretSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Humbird v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Stetson v. CroskeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- Smith v. BellowsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Stanton v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Browning v. RodmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Williams v. BeltzSuperior Court of Delaware · 1917