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.

OLGA L. MCBRIDE v. HARRY B. DAVIS (05/18/79)

decided: May 18, 1979.

OLGA L. MCBRIDE, JOHN A. RUFFINI, HARRY B. DAVIS, SOPHIA DAVIS, HIS WIFE, WILLIAM C. ARCHBOLD, JR., JANICE K. ARCHBOLD, HIS WIFE, GARLAND D. CHERRY, LUCY V. CHERRY, HIS WIFE, AND SHIRLEY E. D'IORIO,
v.
HARRY B. DAVIS, APPELLANT



No. 301 October Term, 1978, Appeal from the order entered August 1, 1977, of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division, at No. 2672 of 1972, in Assumpsit.

COUNSEL

Harry F. Dunn, Jr., Media, for appellant.

Francis T. Sbandi, Media, for appellees.

Jacobs, President Judge, and Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, Spaeth and Hester, JJ. Jacobs, former President Judge, and Hoffman, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 266 Pa. Super. Page 126]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Civil Division, sustaining a verdict entered by the court, non jury, in the amount of $104,388.00 with interest and dismissing exceptions filed under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1038(d).

[ 266 Pa. Super. Page 127]

The exceptions raised by the appellant fall into three categories:

(1) The court's exclusion of certain testimony on what defendant terms an erroneous application of the Rule against Parol Evidence;

(2) The court's refusal to disallow defendant's responsibility for authorizing "extra" work;

(3) That the court's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

It appears that the appellant, who was a real estate developer, interested some friends and neighbors in entering into a partnership for the purpose of developing an apartment complex. Architectural plans were prepared, money was advanced, the site for construction acquired and financing arranged for the construction of the complex at a fixed price.

In order to secure a mortgage it was necessary to have a firm price for construction and to name a contractor. Appellant had secured all bids from various sub-contractors and had established the cost basis for constructions. In the construction agreement the appellant was named as the "Contractor" and the mortgage was secured. Shortly thereafter the tentative partnership agreement was finalized and appellant was designated as the managing partner of the venture. All partners had advanced their share of initial capital and arranged for a separate loan for 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.