Skip to main content
· 4/11/1892

Mutchler v. City of Easton

Citations

  • 148 Pa. 441
  • 23 A. 1109
  • 1892 Pa. LEXIS 999

Syllabus

<p>[Marked to be reported.]</p> <p>Practice — Case stated — Presumptions of fact.</p> <p>A case stated, when well drawn, is like an issue developed by special pleading, and presents in a single point, or in a series of points, the very matter that is up for judgment. The court cannot go beyond the issue that is thus brought upon the record, however manifest the justice that might be reached by going farther. The duty of the court is to decide the case that is stated and to presume that what is not included was kept out for sufficient reason: Phila. & Reading R. R. Co. v. Waterman, 54 Pa. 387.</p> <p>A presumption of one fact from others is an inference of fact, and although, according to a rule of law, the jury may be bound to make the presumption, yet the court cannot make it without them: Diehl v. Ihrie, 3 Wharton, 1T3.</p> <p>Municipalities — Public contract — Deposit—Forfeiture.</p> <p>By the ease stated it appeared that the plaintiff was the successful bidder for the construction of sewers in the city of Easton, according to certain plans and specifications, and that as required by the city, he had deposited with the city treasurer a certified check for $2,000 as security that he would enter into a contract for the performance of the work, and that he had failed to enter into such contract. The receipt of the city treasurer, which was made a part of the case stated, contained the clause, “ which check, if the same shall not be declared forfeited by the said department of sewers, will be returned to the said S. B. Mutchler”:</p> <p>Held, (T) That in the absence of a statement in the case stated that the check had been declared forfeited by the said department, the court must assume that no such forfeiture had taken place, and judgment must be entered for the plaintiff.</p> <p>(2) The contract of the parties, and hence the law of their relation, was that plaintiff was entitled to a return of his check in the absence of a declaration of forfeiture by the departmen

Judges: Drioe, Green, Het, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.