Focht v. Rosenbaum
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 207, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., June T., 1894, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 207, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., June T., 1894, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien. Before Ekmentbout, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff contracted with defendant to build for him a four story store building, and to complete the building by December 1, 1892. The building was not completed until March 15, 1894. Plaintiff claimed that fifty-three days of the delay was caused by the defendant giving an oral order to change a girder in the building. The contract contained among others the following…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice McCollum,
The real and only question raised on this appeal is whether the learned court below erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the defendant was entitled to a deduction for the clelay caused by the change of the girder. That the defendant suggested to his architect and on consultation with him directed that the change should be made is undisputed, and that the delay for which he seeks compensation was caused by this change is a fact established by the verdict of the jury based on competent and sufficient evidence. The sole ground on which he rests his claim for…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Universal Builders, Inc. v. Moon Motor Lodge, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Caldwell & Drake v. SchmulbachDistrict Court, N.D. West Virginia · 1909
- Scungio Borst v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- C.E. Pontz Sons, Inc. v. Purcell Const. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Greenberg v. Koegler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.