Bowman Bros. v. Stewart

30 A. 988, 165 Pa. 394, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1015
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 7, 1895·No. Appeal, No. 106·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per. Curiam,

We find nothing in the affidavit of defence that can be regarded as a sufficient answer to the conclusive effect given, by the 44th section of the contract, to the decision of the engineer in relation to the several matters therein specified. There is no allegation of fraud or collusion between the plaintiffs and the city engineer. Averments to the effect that the latter was negligent and made mistakes are not sufficient. When the parties agreed that, “to prevent all disputes and litigation,” his decision, as to any of the matters referred to,should “be final and conclusive,” they impliedly assumed the risk of negligence and consequent mistakes.

Further consideration of the questions involved is unnecessary. They are sufficiently presented and rightly disposed of in the opinion of the court below, and on it we affirm the judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bowman Bros. v. Stewart, 30 A. 988, 165 Pa. 394, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1015 (Pa. 1895).

30 A. 988 (Bowman Bros. v. Stewart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Patriotic Order Sons of America Hall Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Insurance
157 A. 259 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Commonwealth v. Eastern Paving Co.
8 Pa. D. & C. 357 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)
Bizet v. Smith
115 A. 868 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Martindale v. Town of Rochester
86 N.E. 321 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1908)
Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co. v. City of Williamsport
40 A. 471 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)