Mcadams v. Smith
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 79, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1914, No. 1043, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William J. McAdams v. Ellen Smith. Assumpsit to recover a balance alleged to be due on a building contract. Before Henry, P. J., specially presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 79, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1914, No. 1043, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William J. McAdams v. Ellen Smith. Assumpsit to recover a balance alleged to be due on a building contract. Before Henry, P. J., specially presiding. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $426.28. Defendant appealed. ' Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Oelady, P. J.,
This is an action on a written contract to recover for work and material in the alteration and addition to a property belonging to the defendant, according to plans and specifications prepared by an architect selected by the defendant, for which the defendant agreed to pay a fixed sum. Certain modifications were made as the work progressed with the consent pf the architect and owner, by which, according to the plaintiff’s statement, his claim was reduced to $1,320, on account of which the defendant paid the sum of $800, and suit was brought to recover a balance of $520…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gillespie Tool Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Hartman v. MeighanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Smyers v. ZmitrovitchSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
3Cited by2 opinions
- Willard Sales & Service, Inc. v. StevensSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Kaplan v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927