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.

PHILADELPHIA v. MADDEN. (09/12/63)

September 12, 1963

PHILADELPHIA, TO USE, APPELLANT,
v.
MADDEN.



Appeal, No. 156, Oct. T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, June T., 1962, No. 173, in case of City of Philadelphia, to use of John K. Moore, v. Joseph Madden, trading as Joseph Madden & Sons. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

R. Stuart Jenkins, with him Schroeder, Jenkins & Raymond, for appellant.

Daniel B. Pierson, V, with him Raspin, Espenshade, Heins, Erskine and Stewart, and Lindenmuth, Class & Saulnier, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Flood

[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 2]

OPINION BY FLOOD, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on the pleadings for the defendant in a suit by John K. Moore as third party beneficiary under four contracts between the City of Philadelphia and the defendant, providing that all workmen should be paid prevailing wages. Under the pleadings the following facts appear:

During the period from January 1, 1958, to and including April 30, 1961, the defendant, Joseph Madden, contracted with the City of Philadelphia to perform

[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 3]

    certain electrical work. The contracts provide for the payment of a specified sum per hour to the employes of Joseph Madden who perform the services of an electrician. Madden employed Moore to perform certain work required under these contracts. Moore claims that he performed the services of an electrician, but received $4,200.92 less wages than he should have received under the terms and provisions of the contracts and the attached wage schedules. The defendant claims that Moore worked only as an electrician's helper and was not entitled to electrician's wages under the contracts.

The contracts were all made subject to the provisions of § 17-107 of the Philadelphia Code. This provides, inter alia, that prevailing wages shall be paid on all city contracts (subsection (2)(b)), and that any complaints of alleged violations of the section against any contractor or subcontractor for violations of this section or the provisions of the city-work contract required thereby shall be referred to the appropriate commissioner who shall investigate them, make a finding in writing with respect to each complaint and send a copy to the complainant, the contractor and the department ( § 17-107(5)(b)). It further provides that an appeal may be filed with the Board of Labor Standards within ten days after the findings of the commissioner are sent to the parties ( § 17-107(6)(b)(.1)) and that "findings of fact and conclusions of the board shall be conclusive and binding upon the parties and shall not be subject to review by any court except on jurisdictional, procedural or legal grounds." ( § 17-107(6)(b)(.11)).

On October 23, 1961, plaintiff's counsel wrote a letter to Mr. Phillip Carroll, City Hall Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, setting forth certain information and complaining that his client had been paid less ...


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.