Case ID: pa_257/html/0248-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cloud, Stiles and Work, Inc., v. Williams, Appellant.
    
      Contracts — Suit by corporation — Counterclaim — Wages—Share of undivided profits — Refusal.
    1. Where in an action for work and labor done, goods sold and delivered and hire of certain property by plaintiff corporation to defendant, defendant filed a counterclaim for wages alleged to be due him from the plaintiff, but it appeared that such claim was in fact for defendant’s share of the undivided profits of the plaintiff corporation, in which defendant was a stockholder, the trial judge properly withdrew the counterclaim from the consideration of the jury.
    
      Practice, Supreme Court — Assignments of error — Defective assignments.
    
    2. An appeal will not be sustained where the rule relating to- assignments of error is disregarded.
    Argued Feb. 6, 1917.
    Appeal, No. 177, Jan. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., Dec. T., 1913, No. 469, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Cloud, Stiles and Work, Incorporated, v. John J. Williams.
    Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Stewart, Moschzisker and Walling, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit on written contract for construction of sewer, and on verbal contract for goods sold and delivered and for the hire of certain vessels and machinery.
    From the record it appeared that defendant set up a claim for wages alleged to be due him from plaintiff. It appeared that the wage claim was in fact a claim for defendant’s share of the undivided profits of the plaintiff corporation in which he was a stockholder. The trial judge withdrew the counterclaim from the consideration of the jury.
    Verdict for plaintiff for $1,500 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
    
      
      Error assigned was in withdrawing the counterclaim from the consideration of the jury.
    
      John E. McDonough, for appellant.
    
      Kingsley Montgomery, submitted for appellee.
    March 19, 1917:
   Per Curiam,

There is no merit in this appeal, and, even if there were, it could not be sustained, in view of the disregard of the rule relating to assignments of error.

Appeal quashed.