Wade v. Haycock

25 Pa. 382
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 1, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 25 Pa. 382 (Wade v. Haycock) 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
Wade v. Haycock, 25 Pa. 382 (Pa. 1855).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Knox, J. —

After a careful examination of this case, we are of opinion that it is free from error.

The principles of law applicable to the case were clearly and correctly stated to the jury by the learned judge who presided at the trial, and were substantially as follows:—

1. Where one contracts to do all the millwright work necessary in the construction of a grist-mill, he is bound to do it in a workmanlike manner, so that it will answer the purpose for which it is intended.

2. If the millwright, after doing part of the work under the contract, refuses or neglects to complete it, he can recover nothing for part performance; but if the work is all done, but part of it defective in the execution, which defect can be cured by the substitution of other machinery or better work, there may be a recovery of the contract price; or in the absence of - an express .contract, what the work is reasonably worth, deducting the actual damages sustained on account of the defective performance.

3. The measure of damages would be the expense of the new work, and the profits of the mill for such time as it was necessarily stopped from running whilst the alterations were being made.

[384]*3844. Where that part of the work complained of was constructed under directions given by the owner of the mill, the workman is not responsible if the defect was occasioned by following the directions so given.

5. If the employee knowingly and purposely makes the work defective, it is such mala fides on his part that he can recover nothing for any of the work done under the contract.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Moyer v. White
48 Pa. D. & C.3d 487 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1988)
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
4 Pa. D. & C.3d 473 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1977)
ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. Gaster
288 A.2d 771 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Jones & Laughlin Steel. Co. v. Wood & Co.
94 A. 1067 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1915)
Morgan v. Gamble
79 A. 410 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Rakestraw v. Woodward
25 Pa. Super. 165 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Leggoe v. Mayer
2 Pa. Super. 529 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Pa. 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-haycock-pa-1855.