Wymard v. Deeds

Citations

• 21 Pa. Super. 332
• 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 355

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Set-off—Notice.</p> <p>In an action by a subcontractor against a contractor to recover under ar contract to furnish stone for a building erected by the defendant, the defendant may show without special notice, that the amount of stone originally contemplated by the contract was rendered unnecessary by reason of rock foundation being found sooner than was anticipated, and that in consequence thereof the plaintiff was notified not to deliver a certain amount of stone, and that as a matter of fact he did not deliver it, although he claimed to recover the whole amount of the stone specified in the contract. Such a defense is not set-off.</p> <p>Contract — Arbitration clause.</p> <p>Where a contract by which a subcontractor agrees to furnish a contractor with stone for a building, contains an arbitration clause providing in effect that if the parlies could not agree as to certain matters mentioned “ or any other matter should arise relating to this contract,” wherein the parties could not agree that the matter or matters in dispute should be left to the architects whose decision should be final, a dispute as to whether the subcontractor was entitled to recover for the whole amount of stone specified in the contract, when he had not delivered the whole amount because such amount was rendered unnecessary by reason of rock foundation being found sooner than was anticipated, is a matter of dispute within the meaning of the arbitration clause.</p> <p>Where an arbitration clause provides for a reference of disputes to architects, giving the firm name of the architects, a member of the firm whose name is not in the firm name, who was the architect in charge of the work and recognized as such by both parties, is a valid arbitrator, and his finding, acting for his firm, is binding on the parties.</p> <p>Appeals — Assignments of error — Practice.</p> <p>On an appeal from a judgment on a verdict an assignment of error to the effect that the court erred in holding that