Kapailo Manufacturing Co. v. Fay
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 48, Oct. T., 1913, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 671, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Kapailo Manufacturing Company v. Edward C. Fay, Ellen M. Fay et al., individually and trading as Edward Fay & Son. Assumpsit for material and labor furnished. The averments of the affidavit of defense are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 48, Oct. T., 1913, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 671, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Kapailo Manufacturing Company v. Edward C. Fay, Ellen M. Fay et al., individually and trading as Edward Fay & Son. Assumpsit for material and labor furnished. The averments of the affidavit of defense are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The case was one for a…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The defendants were contractors with the city of Philadelphia for the erection of a recreation building. The plaintiff was a subcontractor under an agreement in writing with the defendants dated June 3, 1912, to provide “all the materials and perform all the work for the completion of all interior Kapailo work in the lobby, two club rooms and auditorium of the Recreation Building.” The work was to be done under the direction of the defendants’ architect §,nd to be subject to his approval. Having completed the contract and the work having been accepted by the architect…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Geo. McKay & Co. v. McKennaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- American Surety Co. of New York v. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933