Hartley-Zeigler Co. v. Bacon

Citations

• 251 Pa. 87
• 96 A. 257
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 639

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Breach—Labor and material — “Plans\—“Specifications\ — Set-off—Bvidence—Rescission of contract — Practice, Supreme Court.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover for the furnishing of labor and material in certain concrete work the trial court did not err in refusing a continuance, moved for on the ground that a copy of certain plans of a building on which part of the work was to be done was not asked for by the plaintiff, nor appended to plaintiff’s declaration, where it appeared that the plaintiff did not contract to build the garage or be responsible for the building, but was merely under obligation to furnish the concrete material and labor, and the plans were to be used simply to indicate where the work was to be done. The determination of this question was within the discretion of the trial judge.</p> <p>2. In such case the court did not err in refusing to admit in evidence plans and specifications of the building for the purpose of showing that the contracts had not been carried out in accordance with the defendant’s construction thereof, where an examination of such contracts showed that the specifications were not mentioned as a part of the undertaking by the plaintiff, and particularly where defendant was permitted to testify as to their contents.</p> <p>3. The court did not err in such case in rejecting defendant’s offer to prove the meaning of the word “plans” as used in this connection where there was not sufficient basis for the contention that the word “plans” included the specifications. Plans are not, in the same sense, nor to the same extent, to be considered an integral part of the contract as are the specifications. Their office is rather to illustrate and explain what is to be done.</p> <p>4. In such case the striking out of testimony on behalf of the defendant, which asserted that the specifications defined what constituted the character of the mixture of concrete agreed upon by the parties was not erroneous, the specifications not bei