Consolidated Dressed Beef Co. v. Philadelphia

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 4, 1914

Consolidated Dressed Beef Co. v. Philadelphia, 245 Pa. 268 (Pa. 1914)

91 A. 367; 1914 Pa. LEXIS 872

Brown, Elkin, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The undisputed facts in this case appear in the charge to the jury, in which the learned trial judge directed them to return a certificate in favor of the defendant. It was clearly entitled to that certificate, and the basis for the same was competent testimony, the admission of which is the subject of the first assignment of error; The second, third, fourth and fifth complain of the disab lowance of certain offers of testimony. If all of it had been admitted, it would not have helped the appellant, which was bound by the plain, self-construing, terms of its written contract with the city. The judgment on the verdict directed in its favor is affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Contracts — Municipalities—Contract to supply beef — Defalcation — Certificate. 1. A municipality cannot be estopped by the illegal, neglectful, or dishonest acts of its former officials, and the fact that a contractor has for many years been contracting with a municipality to supply it with beef of a certain quality and has been allowed by such officials to supply beef of inferior grade does not relieve the contractor from the duty of fulfilling its contract in accordance with its plain terms. 2. In an action by a beef supply company against a municipality to recover the contract price of beef, a verdict for the defendant with a certificate is properly directed where it appears that the plaintiff failed and declined to perform the contract in question in accordance with its terms and sought to excuse its default on the sole ground that it and others who had been contracting with the city for meat for many years had been allowed by former officials to overlook the provisions of similar specifications, and it further appearing that the city suffered a loss by such failure of the plaintiff to perform to the amount of the certificate.