Heating Utilities Co. v. Seibert

Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas

Heating Utilities Co. v. Seibert

8 Pa. D. & C. 320, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 292

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County

DecidedMarch 20, 1926

DocketNo. 18

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Pa. D. & C. 320 (Heating Utilities Co. v. Seibert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heating Utilities Co. v. Seibert, 8 Pa. D. & C. 320, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 292 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Landis, P. J.,

The plaintiff claims that there is due him, as a balance of the contract price for installing a hot-water plant, the sum of $374 and interest, and he has brought this suit to recover the same. It is admitted that on July 20, 1925, the parties entered into a written contract, whereby the plaintiff was to install the said plant under certain terms and conditions for the sum of $674; that the hot-water plant was installed in defendant’s store and dwelling, and that the defendant paid $300 on account; but the dispute is that it was not installed in accordance with the contract.

The agreement provided: “All work to be done in a neat, substantial and workmanlike manner, and the apparatus, when completed, to be left in good working order.” Certain radiators were placed in the various rooms, and these rooms were to be heated to a certain temperature. There was also a stipulation as follows: “We guarantee that the apparatus, when completed in accordance with this specification, will be of ample capacity to warm all rooms mentioned in the schedule to the temperature mentioned therein zero degrees Fah. outside temperature when building is furnished and occupied, and that the apparatus throughout will have a free and rapid circulation.” The price was to be paid thirty days after the installation.

Let us now turn to the affidavit of defence. It avers that the plant “was not installed in a neat, substantial and workmanlike manner and the apparatus when completed was not in working order as stipulated so to be in the original specifications and contract;” that it “does not warm the rooms of said plaintiff’s store and dwelling as guaranteed so to do,” and for that reason “the defendant has been compelled to employ other mechanics to place said heating plant in good working condition” at a cost of $350. It seems to' us that, if this is true, and for the present it must be assumed to be true, then the defendant has a defence to the plaintiff’s claim.

The question of set-off, which is seemingly raised in the affidavit of defence, is not now before us. It may be that the defendant cannot prove it as a set-off on the trial; but whether he can or cannot does not enter into the disposition of this rule.

The rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence is now discharged. Rule discharged. From George Ross Eshleman, Lancaster, Pa.

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

Landis, P. J.,

The plaintiff claims that there is due him, as a balance of the contract price for installing a hot-water plant, the sum of $374 and interest, and he has brought this suit to recover the same. It is admitted that on July 20, 1925, the parties entered into a written contract, whereby the plaintiff was to install the said plant under certain terms and conditions for the sum of $674; that the hot-water plant was installed in defendant’s store and dwelling, and that the defendant paid $300 on account; but the dispute is that it was not installed in accordance with the contract.

The agreement provided: “All work to be done in a neat, substantial and workmanlike manner, and the apparatus, when completed, to be left in good working order.” Certain radiators were placed in the various rooms, and these rooms were to be heated to a certain temperature. There was also a stipulation as follows: “We guarantee that the apparatus, when completed in accordance with this specification, will be of ample capacity to warm all rooms mentioned in the schedule to the temperature mentioned therein zero degrees Fah. outside temperature when building is furnished and occupied, and that the apparatus throughout will have a free and rapid circulation.” The price was to be paid thirty days after the installation.

Let us now turn to the affidavit of defence. It avers that the plant “was not installed in a neat, substantial and workmanlike manner and the apparatus when completed was not in working order as stipulated so to be in the original specifications and contract;” that it “does not warm the rooms of said plaintiff’s store and dwelling as guaranteed so to do,” and for that reason “the defendant has been compelled to employ other mechanics to place said heating plant in good working condition” at a cost of $350. It seems to' us that, if this is true, and for the present it must be assumed to be true, then the defendant has a defence to the plaintiff’s claim.

The question of set-off, which is seemingly raised in the affidavit of defence, is not now before us. It may be that the defendant cannot prove it as a set-off on the trial; but whether he can or cannot does not enter into the disposition of this rule.

The rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence is now discharged. Rule discharged. From George Ross Eshleman, Lancaster, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Pa. D. & C. 320, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heating-utilities-co-v-seibert-pactcompllancas-1926.