Stuckert v. Wedge

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Stuckert v. Wedge

46 Pa. Super. 140, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 247

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 3, 1911

DocketAppeal, No. 15

StatusPublished

This text of 46 Pa. Super. 140 (Stuckert v. Wedge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stuckert v. Wedge, 46 Pa. Super. 140, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 247 (Pa. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

It was alleged in the statement of claim, and admitted [141]*141in the affidavit of defense, that the defendant employed the plaintiff to draw plans and specifications for a building but that they were not entirely completed because, as alleged in the statement of claim, the plaintiff was directed by the defendant to stop work, or, as alleged in the affidavit of defense, the parties agreed that work should be discontinued. Under either view of the case the plaintiff was entitled to recover for part performance such compensation as his work up to the time it was discontinued was reasonably worth. This was admitted in the affidavit of defense, but the amount was in dispute, the plaintiff alleging in the statement of claim that it was four-fifths of the price stipulated for the whole work, and the defendant alleging that it was not over $100. While the defendant’s allegation does not amount to a direct and positive admission that the services were worth $100, yet it is clear that as to that portion of the plaintiff’s claim it presents no sufficient defense. The Act of May 31, 1893, P. L. 185, authorizing the plaintiff to take judgment for the amount admitted to be due by the affidavit of defense, with leave to proceed as to the residue, was construed to apply only to cases where the affidavit clearly admitted a portion of the claim, and not to cases where as to a portion of the claim the affidavit was insufficient: Reilly v. Daly, 159 Pa. 605; Muir v. Shinn, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 24; Ganor v. Hinrichs, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 522. This difficulty was overcome by the Act of July 15, 1897, P. L. 276, which provides that if the court shall adjudge any portion or portions of the affidavit of defense to be insufficient in law the plaintiff may take judgment “for the portion or portions of the claim as to which the court shall adjudge the affidavit of defense to be insufficient.” Here the plaintiff conformed to approved practice by designating in his rule the portion of the claim, namely, $100, as to which the affidavit was insufficient, and the court properly made the rule absolute for that amount: Smucker v. Grinberg, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 531 (537).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

It was alleged in the statement of claim, and admitted [141]*141in the affidavit of defense, that the defendant employed the plaintiff to draw plans and specifications for a building but that they were not entirely completed because, as alleged in the statement of claim, the plaintiff was directed by the defendant to stop work, or, as alleged in the affidavit of defense, the parties agreed that work should be discontinued. Under either view of the case the plaintiff was entitled to recover for part performance such compensation as his work up to the time it was discontinued was reasonably worth. This was admitted in the affidavit of defense, but the amount was in dispute, the plaintiff alleging in the statement of claim that it was four-fifths of the price stipulated for the whole work, and the defendant alleging that it was not over $100. While the defendant’s allegation does not amount to a direct and positive admission that the services were worth $100, yet it is clear that as to that portion of the plaintiff’s claim it presents no sufficient defense. The Act of May 31, 1893, P. L. 185, authorizing the plaintiff to take judgment for the amount admitted to be due by the affidavit of defense, with leave to proceed as to the residue, was construed to apply only to cases where the affidavit clearly admitted a portion of the claim, and not to cases where as to a portion of the claim the affidavit was insufficient: Reilly v. Daly, 159 Pa. 605; Muir v. Shinn, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 24; Ganor v. Hinrichs, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 522. This difficulty was overcome by the Act of July 15, 1897, P. L. 276, which provides that if the court shall adjudge any portion or portions of the affidavit of defense to be insufficient in law the plaintiff may take judgment “for the portion or portions of the claim as to which the court shall adjudge the affidavit of defense to be insufficient.” Here the plaintiff conformed to approved practice by designating in his rule the portion of the claim, namely, $100, as to which the affidavit was insufficient, and the court properly made the rule absolute for that amount: Smucker v. Grinberg, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 531 (537).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Pa. Super. 140, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stuckert-v-wedge-pasuperct-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack