Lamb v. City of Erie

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Lamb v. City of Erie

105 A. 463, 262 Pa. 391, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 657

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 23, 1918·No. Appeal, No. 75·Published

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Before the contract between the City of Erie and Metz and Roth for the construction of the Mill Creek conduit could take effect as a contract, it was necessary to have on it the certificate of the superintendent of finance, as required by Article VII, paragraph 13, of the Act of June 27,1913, P. L. 568, and, as it bore no such certificate, it did not “take effect”: City of Erie v. Moody, 176 Pa. 478. As nothing could be lawfully done under it, its invalidity continued when the city entered into the agreement with George E. Cantrell, Inc., to complete it. The enjoining decree of the court below could not have been withheld, and it is now affirmed at the costs of the appellants.

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

Pee Curiam,

Before the contract between the City of Erie and Metz and Roth for the construction of the Mill Creek conduit could take effect as a contract, it was necessary to have on it the certificate of the superintendent of finance, as required by Article VII, paragraph 13, of the Act of June 27,1913, P. L. 568, and, as it bore no such certificate, it did not “take effect”: City of Erie v. Moody, 176 Pa. 478. As nothing could be lawfully done under it, its invalidity continued when the city entered into the agreement with George E. Cantrell, Inc., to complete it. The enjoining decree of the court below could not have been withheld, and it is now affirmed at the costs of the appellants.

Lamb v. City of Erie, 105 A. 463, 262 Pa. 391, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 657 (Pa. 1918).

Pincite

105 A. 463 (Lamb v. City of Erie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related