Case ID: pa-super_71/html/0236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Orlady, P. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pittsburgh Rivet Co. v. Western Tool & Forge Co., Appellant.
    
      Contracts — Conflicting evidence — Case for fury.
    
    
      In an action of assumpsit on a contract for machinery, the case is for the jury where the issue is the character of the materials furnished and the work done under the contract.
    Argued Dec. 3, 1918.
    Appeal, No. 54, April T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny. Co., January T., 1914, No. 1982, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Pittsburgh Rivet Co. v. Western Tool & Forge Co.
    Before Orlady, P. J.,- Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit before Macfarlane, J.
    From the record it appeared that the Western Tool & Forge Co. entered into a contract with the Pittsburgh Rivet Co. for the construction of certain crank shafts. Specifications were drawn up setting forth the requirements under which these shafts were to be made. Upon the completion of the contract it was alleged in defense that the work had not been in accordance with the specifications. The various matters in dispute were submitted to the jury.
    February 28, 1919:
    Verdict for plaintiff for $777.83 and judgment thereon.
    
      Errors assigned were to the charge of the court (4-7) and for refusal to grant a new trial.
    
      Charles Alvin Jones, and with Mm Sterrett & Aoheson and W. St. Clair Childs, for appellant.
    
      B. J. Jarrett, and with him McCook & Jarrett, for appellee.
   Opinion by

Orlady, P. J.,

No legal question is raised on this appeal; no' authority being cited by either counsel. The whole controversy is over disputed facts as to the manner of doing work under the terms of an agreement between the parties, and this question was clearly and distinctly submitted to the jury under a charge which is free from reversible error, the court saying, “So that you have to decide but one question, and that is, did the Pittsburgh company do its work right? or if they did not, are they excused by the facts in the case as they are found by you? On that branch of the case the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to make out its case.” The plaintiff claimed $777, and the defendant urged that it is entitled to a certificate in its favor of $1,100. After full consideration, a verdict was rendered in the plaintiff’s favor, and after hearing by the court in banc, a new trial was refused.

The judgment is affirmed.