Appeal, No. 42, April T., 1963, from judgment of County Court of Allegheny County, No. A448 of 1961, in case of Frank A. Barcellino v. Ralph Rizzi et ux. Judgment affirmed.
Herbert G. Sheinberg, with him Sheinberg & Sheinberg, for appellants.
James Victor Voss, with him Voss & Voss, for appellee.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 338]
This is an appeal from the judgment of the County Court of Allegheny County entered on a verdict, after
[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 339]
a trial before Judge BECK without a jury, in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, Frank A. Barcellino, and against the defendants-appellants, Ralph Rizzi and Mary Rizzi, his wife, in the amount of $259; and from the dismissal of the defendants' exceptions by the court en banc.
In February of 1960 Barcellino entered into an oral contract with Rizzi to paint a dwelling. Originally this agreement called for a total consideration of $350. Subsequently there was an oral change in this agreement caused by construction changes so that the oral contract was for the sum of $380. This sum has been paid by Rizzi to Barcellino.
This appeal grows out of a claim by Barcellino that, while he was performing under the original oral contract, Rizzi on numerous occasions requested certain additional painting work to be done that was to be considered as extra work and would be charged to Rizzi, in addition to the original $380 oral contract. Barcellino claims that on each occasion Rizzi agreed to pay for the extras. Upon completion of the painting Barcellino submitted a bill to Rizzi for extras in the amount of $259. Rizzi refused to pay and Barcellino obtained a judgment before a Justice of the Peace. Appeal from this judgment resulted in the trial in the court below.
The record is clear that the evidence submitted by Barcellino and his employees that the additional work was done at the request of Rizzi and that Rizzi had agreed to pay for it was amply sufficient to be considered by the trial court sitting as a jury and the defendants' denial raised purely a question of credibility which was decided against Rizzi. There is no merit in the contention that ...