Case ID: pa_155/html/0166-01.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

McCullough v. Ashbridge, Appellant.
    
      Custom.—Mason’s measurement—Evidence.
    
    In an action to recover the price of building four stone gate piers, at two dollars per perch, mason’s measure, it is not improper to admit evidence of a custom among masons to measure piers by finding their actual surface contents, and dividing the result by sixteen and one half.
    Argued Feb. 9, 1893.
    Appeal, No. 100, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Abram S. Ashbridge, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., Jan. T., 1892, No. 91, on verdict for plaintiff, James McCullough.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, McCollum, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
    Assumpsit on building contract.
    Plaintiff claimed to recover $34.00 for building four stone piers or gate posts, at $2.00 per perch, mason’s measure. The posts were circular in form, three feet in diameter and seven and one half feet high.
    At the trial, before Waddell, P. J., plaintiff offered evidence of a custom among masons in the locality to measure piers by finding their actual surface contents, and dividing the result by sixteen and one half. Defendant claimed that the custom was unreasonable.
    Defendant’s points were among others as follows:
    4. Request for binding instructions. Refused. [1]
    “ 7. There being evidence that there are different rules of measurement in this locality, the parties are relegated to the rules of law. Answer: If you should conclude that there are different rules, then it affects the question of custom; but it does not dispose of the question as to how much work was done. If you should conclude there are various rules as to measuring, then you will reach the conclusion that there is no custom about it; that the custom is not so uniform and certain as to warrant you in saying that it is a custom. And still it is for you to ascertain how much work he did by the measurements which have been submitted.” [3]
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were, (1, 3) instructions, quoting them.
    
      
      A. 8. Ashbridge, Jr., for appellant, cited:
    Cope v. Dodd, 13 Pa. 33; Adams v. Pittsburgh Ins. Co., 76 Pa. 411; Jones v. Wagner, 66 Pa. 429 ; Jordan v. Meredith, 3 Yeates, 318; Walls v. Bailey, 49 N. Y. 464; Evans v. Waln, 71 Pa. 69; Horner v. Watson, 79 Pa. 242; Coleman v. Chadwick, 80 Pa. 81.
    
      Thos. W. Pierce, for appellee, filed no printed brief.
    February 20, 1893:
   Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.