Pittsburgh v. Grenet, et al.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1913
• Citation: 238 Pa. 567
• Parties: Pittsburgh, Appellant, <I>v.</I> Grenet, et al. Pittsburgh, Appellant, <I>v.</I> Fulton, et al. Pittsburgh, Appellant, <I>v.</I> Goshorn, et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 567

238 Pa. 567

Pittsburgh, Appellant,

v. Grenet, et al.

Pittsburgh, Appellant, v. Fulton, et al.

Pittsburgh, Appellant, v. Goshorn, et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 30, 1912.

January 6, 1913.

Argued October 30, 1912.

Appeals, Nos. 171, 172 and 173, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from orders of C. P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1912, Nos. 1879, 2748 and 1880, discharging rules for judgment for want of sufficient affidavits of defense in cases of The City of Pittsburgh v. Samuel J. Grenet and the National Surety Company of New York; City of Pittsburgh v. Andrew Fulton, James S. Arnold, Roger O'Mara and Jane M. Fulton; and City of Pittsburgh v. Lawrence R. Goshorn and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, of Baltimore, Md.

Before BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and MOSCHZISKER, JJ. Affirmed.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William A. Stone, for appellant in all three cases.— The remedy provided by the Act of March 7, 1901, P. L. 20, is not exclusive: Philadelphia v. McMichael, 208 Pa. 297.

W. B. Rodgers, with him W. W. Stoner, for Samuel J. Grenet, et al., appellees.—There is no distinction between percentages and fees: Smith v. Dunn, 68 Cal. 54 (8 Pac. Repr. 825); Austin v. Johns, 62 Texas 179; Bedwell v. Custer County, 51 Neb. 387 (70 N. W. Repr. 945); Pittsburgh v. Anderson, 194 Pa. 172; Schuylkill County v. Pepper, 182 Pa. 13; Philadelphia v. McMichael, 208 Pa. 297.

The remedy provided by the Act of March 7, 1901, P. L. 20, is exclusive: Westmoreland County v. Fisher, 172 Pa. 317; Com. v. Scanlan, 202 Pa. 250; Com. v. Patterson, 206 Pa. 522; Blackmore v. Allegheny County, 51 Pa. 160; Dyer v. Covington Twp., 28 Pa. 186; Schuylkill County v. Boyer, 125 Pa. 226.

John D. Brown, for Andrew Fulton, et al., appellees. —The audit was conclusive upon the city: Com. v. Patterson, 206 Pa. 522; Blackmore v. Allegheny County, 51 Pa. 160; Westmoreland County v. Fisher, 172 Pa. 317.

John P. Hunter, with him Walter Lyon and Stonecipher & Ralston, for Lawrence R. Goshorn, appellee.— The audit was conclusive upon the city, and the remedy provided in the statute is exclusive: Com. v. Patterson, 206 Pa. 522; Com. v. Scanlan, 202 Pa. 250; Brown v. White Deer Township, 27 Pa. 109; Westmoreland County v. Fisher, 172 Pa. 317; Leasure v. Mahoning Township, 8 Watts 551; Richter v. Penn Township, 9 Pa. 79; Northampton County v. Yohe, 24 Pa. 305; Rex v. Duchess of Kingston, 20 Howell, State Trials 355, 538; Kilheffer v. Herr, 17 S. & R. 319; Bell v. Allegheny County, 184 Pa. 296; Orr v. Fire Ins. Co., 114 Pa. 387; Danziger v. Williams, 91 Pa. 234.

PER CURIAM, January 6, 1913:

These three appeals, involving the same question, were argued together, and each is dismissed on the opinion of the court below in the Grenet case, refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Appeals dismissed.