Flynn v. Hurlock
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 290, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 180, refusing to take off nonsuit. Assumpsit for work and labor done. At the trial it appeared tliat plaintiff claimed for work done and materials furnished for the building of six walls at the House of Correction. The defendants who were the contractors with the city denied their liability.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 290, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 180, refusing to take off nonsuit. Assumpsit for work and labor done. At the trial it appeared tliat plaintiff claimed for work done and materials furnished for the building of six walls at the House of Correction. The defendants who were the contractors with the city denied their liability. They also showed that after the work was completed plaintiff sent a bill to them for $8,990.50. He subsequently called upon W. A. Hurlock, and requested payment of the bill. Mr. Hurlock wrote at the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
While we do not think there is any merit in the several assignments of error submitted on behalf of the appellant, and while it is certainly true that a receipt is open to explanation, and is not necessarily conclusive in itself, we are very clear that, upon the testimony in this case, the receipt “ in full of all demands,” given by the plaintiff to the defendant, when the final payment was made, precludes him from any further recovery. He gave *464this receipt because the defendants refused to pay any more money without it. He must be assumed to have received the money upon the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Gholson v. SavinOhio Supreme Court · 1941
- Laughead v. H. C. Frick Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Daly v. DallmeyerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Guhl v. FrankSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Lorenzo v. RinnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.