Philadelphia v. Neill

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia v. Neill

83 A. 575, 235 Pa. 117, 1912 Pa. LEXIS 510

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 19, 1912

DocketAppeal, No. 239

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A. 575 (Philadelphia v. Neill) 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

Philadelphia v. Neill, 83 A. 575, 235 Pa. 117, 1912 Pa. LEXIS 510 (Pa. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Cueiam,

A. M. Neill entered into a written contract with the city of Philadelphia for the grading and paving of certain streets, and executed and delivered to it a bond with the Lincoln Savings and Trust Company as surety thereon, the condition of which was that he would pay for all labor and materials furnished to him in connection with the performance of his contract. Finding himself unable to perform it, Neill, on August 10, 1910, assigned it to John Dagney, who, in consideration of its assignment to him, undertook to perform it and to pay to Neill one-half of all profits that might accrue from it. Dagney furnished labor and materials to the amount of $3,380, and this action has been brought by his administrator to recover that sum on Neill’s bond. Neill’s assignment to Dagney of his contract with the city was, as the learned trial judge correctly held, “upon terms of quasi partnership.” The bond was not given to indemnify the contractor against his own default, but this, in effect, is the use which the appellant would make of it.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Peb Cueiam,

A. M. Neill entered into a written contract with the city of Philadelphia for the grading and paving of certain streets, and executed and delivered to it a bond with the Lincoln Savings and Trust Company as surety thereon, the condition of which was that he would pay for all labor and materials furnished to him in connection with the performance of his contract. Finding himself unable to perform it, Neill, on August 10, 1910, assigned it to John Dagney, who, in consideration of its assignment to him, undertook to perform it and to pay to Neill one-half of all profits that might accrue from it. Dagney furnished labor and materials to the amount of $3,380, and this action has been brought by his administrator to recover that sum on Neill’s bond. Neill’s assignment to Dagney of his contract with the city was, as the learned trial judge correctly held, “upon terms of quasi partnership.” The bond was not given to indemnify the contractor against his own default, but this, in effect, is the use which the appellant would make of it.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A. 575, 235 Pa. 117, 1912 Pa. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philadelphia-v-neill-pa-1912.