Seibert v. Householder
10 A. 784, 8 Sadler 576, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 714
Opinion
The plaintiff in error, defendant- below, admits that the work-sued for was done under a contract by which its price was definitely fixed. It was, therefore, to no purpose to prove for what price others would have done the work; hence, the offer-covered by the assignment of error was properly refused.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Seibert v. Householder, 10 A. 784, 8 Sadler 576, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 714 (Pa. 1887).
10 A. 784 (Seibert v. Householder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Shuey v. Rump
421 A.2d 324 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Consoli v. Heilman
74 Pa. D. & C. 129 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Snyder v. Markitell Et Ux.
52 A.2d 186 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)
United Emb. Co., Inc. v. Gorin
97 Pa. Super. 598 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)