Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RENNEKAMP SUPPLY COMPANY v. VALICENTI (03/24/55)

March 24, 1955

RENNEKAMP SUPPLY COMPANY
v.
VALICENTI, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 18, April T., 1954, from judgment of County Court of Allegheny County, 1951, No. 1159, in case of Rennekamp Supply Company v. Carmele Valicenti. Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

Walter W. Riehl, for appellant.

Herman Recht, with him C. Joseph Recht, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside and Ervin, JJ.

Author: Woodside

[ 178 Pa. Super. Page 14]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the County Court of Allegheny County entered for the plaintiff in an assumpsit action for building materials sold and delivered to the defendant.

In the complaint the plaintiff alleged that certain building materials were ordered by the defendant through her husband, acting as her agent by virtue of a power of attorney, and delivered to Ordale Boulevard in Mt. Lebanon.

The answer denied that the materials were ordered, that they were delivered, that the prices were fair and reasonable, that they were delivered on the dates set forth and that defendant's husband was acting as her agent in ordering the goods. She further averred that a Mechanic's Lien had been filed against her for the materials delivered and that she had paid for them.

The case was tried before Judge KAUFMAN without a jury. He entered judgment against the defendant in the sum of $1284.66 with interest thereon from April 12, 1949.

The court was "convinced" that the materials for which the payment is sought were actually delivered, received, and used by the defendant, and that they had never been paid for. The court found from the evidence that the alleged payments were "all carefully accounted for," and were not made to the defendant for the materials involved in this suit. The court also found that the Mechanic's Lien was not for these materials and payment of it was not in satisfaction of this claim or any part of it.

We have reviewed the evidence and find it sufficient to support the finding of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.