MacDonald ex rel. Leahey v. Piper

44 A. 455, 193 Pa. 312, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1122
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 30, 1899·No. Appeal, No. 164·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This action of assumpsit was brought to recover a balance alleged to be due by the defendants for plaintiff’s services as civil and mining engineer and for other services and work performed and done by him for defendants at their request, etc., and amounting to 11,599.13 as set forth in his statement of claim.

In substance, the defense was settlement and payment in full. Evidence tending to sustain their respective contentions was introduced by each of the parties. The defendants among other things gave in evidence a receipted bill, the last lumping item of which is, For mine work in 1891 and 1892, being in full for all work to January 1st, 1893.”

Without referring in detail to the several items of claim and defense, which would consume considerable time to no useful purpose, it is sufficient to say that the case involved questions of fact which were clearly for the exclusive consideration of the [319] jury. Those questions were accordingly submitted to them by the learned trial judge in a fair, impartial and comprehensive charge, containing instructions which appear to be adequate and free from substantial error. Considered as a whole, we find no error in the charge of which the plaintiff has any just reason to complain. The instructions as to the effect that should be given to a receipt in full, such as that above quoted, are substantially accurate. There appears to be nothing in the record that would justify us in sustaining any of the specifications of error. They are all dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

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

MacDonald ex rel. Leahey v. Piper, 44 A. 455, 193 Pa. 312, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1122 (Pa. 1899).

44 A. 455 (MacDonald ex rel. Leahey v. Piper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mabry v. Knabb
10 So. 2d 330 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
Rutz v. Hoffower
39 Pa. D. & C. 47 (Cameron County Court of Common Pleas, 1940)
Carl v. Carl
4 Pa. D. & C. 305 (Columbia County Court of Common Pleas, 1923)
Flaccus v. Wood
103 A. 549 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)
Cooper v. Cooper
60 Pa. Super. 390 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1915)
Hopkins v. Wise
33 Pa. Super. 544 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Guhl v. Frank
22 Pa. Super. 531 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)
Daly v. Dallmeyer
20 Pa. Super. 366 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Bradley v. McHale
19 Pa. Super. 300 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1902)
Benseman v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
13 Pa. Super. 363 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)