Canavan v. Neeld
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 188, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Allegheny County, Aug. T., 1897, No. 276, on certificate for defendants. Assumpsit on a contract for stone sold and delivered. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 188, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 8, Allegheny County, Aug. T., 1897, No. 276, on certificate for defendants. Assumpsit on a contract for stone sold and delivered. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court, Kennedy, P. J., charged in part as follows: [ But the defendants claim that this, exhibit “ A,” was the contract in existence between them, and claim further a large amount of damages by reason of the failure, upon the part of the plaintiffs to perform their contract. They first say that, on account of their failure to furnish…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bv
Me. Justice Dean,
The defendants in July, 1896, entered into a contract with the city of Pittsburg to build and complete within ten months what is known as the Schenley Park bridge. Preliminary to commencing the work, they contracted with plaintiffs to furnish all the stone necessary for it, of certain dimensions and quality, in accordance with the plans and specifications of the director of public works of the city, and subject to his inspection and approval; the delivery to commence July 25, 1896, and continue at a weekly average of quantity, the whole to be on the ground by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Twin City Creamery Co. v. GodfreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
- Hoffman v. WinstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- McKinley v. SmallMichigan Supreme Court · 1916