Mort Co. v. Paul
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Dithrich, J.,
This action to recover the balance due on a contract for the installation of storm windows on defendant’s premises is defended on the ground that plaintiff failed to perform the work in accordance with the contract. In more specific terms, the defense is that the work' was not done in a good and workmanlike manner.
The jury found for plaintiff in the full amount of its claim. Defendant then moved for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial, alleging that the trial judge committed fundamental error in the charge, to which only a general exception was taken. From a denial of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sgarlat v. GriffithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Giannone v. RealeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Morgan v. GambleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Gillespie Tool Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Danville Bridge Co. v. Pomroy & ColonySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Amerada Hess Corp. v. QuinnNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976
- West Development Group, Ltd. v. Horizon Financial, F.A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Schlein v. GrossSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- Fort Washington Resources, Inc. v. TannenDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
- First Mortg. Co. of Pa. v. CarterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.