Stork v. Philadelphia
This text of 49 A. 236 (Stork v. Philadelphia) 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.
Opinion
Opinion by
The undisputed evidence shows that the city not only retained the right to determine when any underpinning or shoring up of foundations should be done (such work being the subject of extra compensation to the contractor), but did in fact refuse or neglect to authorize the shoring up of plaintiff’s house when the excavation was first made. This omission was the negligence complained of as the cause of the injury. There was evidence, therefore, on which the case must have gone to the jury, and under the agreement of the parties, the court was right in entering judgment for the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
49 A. 236, 199 Pa. 462, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stork-v-philadelphia-pa-1901.