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.

UNITED PLATE GLASS COMPANY v. METAL TRIMS INDUSTRIES (02/25/86)

filed: February 25, 1986.

UNITED PLATE GLASS COMPANY, DIVISION OF CHROMALLOY AMERICAN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
METAL TRIMS INDUSTRIES, INC. AND THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY



Appeal from the Judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, on August 30, 1984, at G.D. #82-12931.

COUNSEL

Charles E. Bobinis, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

David A. Scott, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Wieand, Del Sole and Hester, JJ. Wieand, J., files a dissenting opinion.

Author: Del Sole

[ 351 Pa. Super. Page 229]

This appeal follows the trial courts dismissal of Appellant's exceptions filed to an order directing judgment against Appellant and in favor of both Appellees.

The underlying action concerned a dispute which developed as a result of the construction of the Pittsburgh Convention Center, a public works project. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services, as owner, contracted with Frank Brisco Company (Brisco) as the "prime contractor". Brisco then entered an agreement with Appellee, Metal Trims Industries, Inc. (Metal) whereby Metal was obligated to supply and install all metal window

[ 351 Pa. Super. Page 230]

    walls, glass, doors, frames, and glazing for the project. Thereafter, Metal subcontracted some of its work to Appellant. Appellee, Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) provided a performance and payment bond in favor of the Department of General Services, as required by the Public Work Contractors' Bond Law. 8 P.S. § 191 et seq. In July of 1982, Appellant brought suit against both Metal and Travelers for $41,541.22, the amount alleged to be the unpaid balance under the contract, plus interest and costs. A non-jury trial was held and the court found in favor of both Appellees. Subsequently, Appellant's exceptions were denied and the judgment was entered from which this timely appeal was filed.

Because the instant appeal raises an issue involving the interpretation and application of a statute which regulates the affairs of political subdivisions, municipalities, local authorities or public corporation, we find that it is appropriate to transfer this case to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court.

The applicable section of the Judicial Code which establishes the jurisdiction of Commonwealth Court provides:

§ 762. Appeals from the Courts of Common Pleas

(a) General Rule. -- Except as provided in subsection (b), the Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders 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.