Pitt Const. Co. v. City of Dayton
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western. Division of the Southern District of Ohio; John E. Sater, Judge. Action by the. Pitt Construction Company against the City of Dayton. There was a judgment for defendant on the pleadings, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
WARRINGTON, Circuit Judge.
The Pitt Construction Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, and the city of Dayton, state of Ohio, entered into a written contract, September 16, 1912, for an extension and improvement of the waterworks system of Dayton. The Construction Company was to furnish the material and perform the labor in constructing a line of cast-iron water pipe, with proper connections, along a particular course between the pumping station and the reservoir of the city, including standpipe foundations, according to specifications, plans, and drawings, and for prices attached to the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gearty v. . Mayor, Etc., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Wood v. Fort WayneSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Horgan v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Roemheld v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
- Sheehan v. PittsburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. HW Nelson Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941
- Henry Shenk Co. v. Erie CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Housing Authority of City of Dallas v. HubbellCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1959
- Ace Stone, Inc. v. Township of WayneSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1966
- Buckley & Co., Inc. v. StateNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.