Ficca v. Mt. Carmel Township Poor District

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ficca v. Mt. Carmel Township Poor District

200 A. 607, 331 Pa. 143, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 677

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 17, 1938

DocketAppeals, 334-336

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A. 607 (Ficca v. Mt. Carmel Township Poor District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ficca v. Mt. Carmel Township Poor District, 200 A. 607, 331 Pa. 143, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 677 (Pa. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellees, engaged in the retail sale of merchandise in Mount Carmel Township, brought an action in assumpsit to recover for merchandise sold and delivered to the poor district in aid of indigents of the district. The actions were in the nature of a common law quantum valebant count in general assumpsit rather than on an express contract. Recovery was sought only for the usual and customary price for such goods. The poor district did not offer any evidence controverting appellees’ claims. Appellants, taxpayers, intervened and in their affidavit of defense in each case stated that the poor district had a defense to the actions. The intervenors, however, offered no evidence but objected to the contracts as being vague and unenforceable.

The court below, trying the cases without a jury, found upon sufficient evidence that the contracts were adequately proven, the goods were received, and the prices charged were reasonable and fair. The assignments of error raise no substantial legal question, and, without deciding whether appellants are the proper parties to appeal, we find the court below did not err in entering judgment for appellees.

Judgments affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Appellees, engaged in the retail sale of merchandise in Mount Carmel Township, brought an action in assumpsit to recover for merchandise sold and delivered to the poor district in aid of indigents of the district. The actions were in the nature of a common law quantum valebant count in general assumpsit rather than on an express contract. Recovery was sought only for the usual and customary price for such goods. The poor district did not offer any evidence controverting appellees’ claims. Appellants, taxpayers, intervened and in their affidavit of defense in each case stated that the poor district had a defense to the actions. The intervenors, however, offered no evidence but objected to the contracts as being vague and unenforceable.

The court below, trying the cases without a jury, found upon sufficient evidence that the contracts were adequately proven, the goods were received, and the prices charged were reasonable and fair. The assignments of error raise no substantial legal question, and, without deciding whether appellants are the proper parties to appeal, we find the court below did not err in entering judgment for appellees.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A. 607, 331 Pa. 143, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ficca-v-mt-carmel-township-poor-district-pa-1938.