Kann v. Bennett
Citations
- 223 Pa. 36
- 72 A. 342
- 1909 Pa. LEXIS 470
Syllabus
<p>Contract — Building contract — Completion of work by owner — Evidence ■ — Declarations.</p> <p>1. Where an owner, in a building contract, alleges that the contractor has failed to prosecute the work with due diligence, enters upon the building, completes the work, and sues the contractor for an amount expended in excess of the contract price, the important question which lies at the threshold of the inquiry is whether the defendant had failed to furnish a sufficient number of skilled workmen, and proper materials for the erection of the house, and whether he had prosecuted the wprk with due diligence,</p> <p>2. In such a case the plaintiff cannot in support of his contention introduce letters addressed by the architect, the plaintiff’s agent under the contract, to the defendant, setting forth an argumentative presentation of plaintiff’s contention, there being nothing on the record to show that they were actually received, or that they were ever replied to in any manner by the defendant. Such letters amount to nothing-more than declarations by plaintiff in his own behalf; nor can the plaintiff introduce certain schedules attached to the statement of claim, for the purpose of showing a statement of account against the defendant, where the correctness of the items of the schedule are denied by the affidavit of defense. Such schedules amount to nothing more than plaintiff’s own assertion of what was due to him.</p> <p>3. Where an owner takes over from the contractor and finishes a building intended as a residence and his reason for doing so is alleged undue delay on the part of the contractor, where no actual loss is shown by the owner from delay in getting it ready for occupancy, there is no basis for the admission of proof of the rental value of the house as one of the elements of damage suffered by the owner.</p> <p>Evidence — Cross-examination—Contents of letter — Extracts from letter.</p> <p>4. It is not allowed under cross-examination in the statement of a que
Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.