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.

POTTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY ET AL. v. LOFFREDO ET AL. (06/24/75)

decided: June 24, 1975.

POTTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY ET AL.
v.
LOFFREDO ET AL., APPELLANTS



Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, March T., 1972, No. 893, in case of Potts Manufacturing Company and The General State Authority, etc. v. Fred Loffredo and Security Insurance Company of Hartford.

COUNSEL

Charles F. Duffield, with him Anthony L. V. Picciotti, and Picciotti and Renzulli, for appellants.

Thomas A. Beckley, with him Craig W. Bremer, and Beckley & Grove, for appellees.

Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Van der Voort, J. Jacobs, J., concurs in the result.

Author: Van Der Voort

[ 235 Pa. Super. Page 295]

Appeal is taken to this Court from entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellees, movants therefor. Appellant Loffredo was the general contractor on a construction project at the White Haven State School and Hospital for the General State Authority. Potts Manufacturing

[ 235 Pa. Super. Page 296]

Company submitted a proposal to Loffredo to supply and erect, as sub-contractor, certain metals and ornamental iron work for the job and Loffredo issued a purchase order*fn1 accepting Pott's proposal. Security Insurance is Loffredo's surety.

Alleging full and satisfactory performance under the contract, and acceptance of same by Loffredo, Potts filed a complaint in assumpsit on May 8, 1972, seeking payment. Appellants answered on June 21, 1972. On May 24, 1974, appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings, which motion was granted following denial of appellants' petition to amend their answer.

Appellants challenge the entry of judgment on the grounds that their answer did raise disputed issues of fact and that the lower court's denial of petition to amend answer was error. The relevant paragraphs from appellees' original complaint and appellants' answer are discussed below.

[ 235 Pa. Super. Page 297]

It is elementary law that judgment on the pleadings cannot be entered where there are unknown or disputed issues of fact. North Star Coal Co. v. Waverly Oil Works Page 297} Co., 447 Pa. 241, 288 A.2d 768 (1972). "Thus, if there is any issue of fact which is unresolved, no motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted." Coal Operators Cas. Co. v. Easterby & Co., Inc., 440 Pa. 218, 221, 269 A.2d 671, 672 (1970). Therefore, this Court must consider the pleadings and documents relevant thereto. See SN, Inc. v. Long, 208 Pa. Superior Ct. 38, 220 A.2d 357 (1966). Appellees' paragraph "9" of their complaint avers:

"9. Potts Manufacturing Company made all deliveries, performed all acts and conditions required of it under the agreement of the ...


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.