Rissmiller v. Evangelical Lutheran Congregation
| Decision Date | 26 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 156 |
| Citation | 110 A. 740,268 Pa. 41 |
| Parties | Rissmiller, Appellant, v. Evangelical Lutheran Congregation et al |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 9, 1920
Appeal, No. 156, Jan. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Northampton Co., July T., 1916, No. 20, on verdict for defendants in case of Eugene Rissmiller v. Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, Saint Peters, Plainfield Township Northampton County, and German Evangelical Reformed Congregation of Plainfield. Affirmed.
Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before McKEEN, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned were refusal of various challenges to jurors, and various rulings and instructions.
Judgment affirmed.
H. M. Hagerman, with him Everett Kent, for appellants.
Robert A. Stotz, for appellee.
Before BROWN, C.J., STEWART, FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON and KEPHART, JJ.
This action was brought for the recovery of damages for the breach of a parol contract which the plaintiff alleges he had entered into with the defendants for the erection and construction of a church or place of divine worship, in Plainfield Township, Northampton County. Plaintiff is a building contractor; defendants are two separate congregations, one associated and in connection with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the other associated and in connection with the German Evangelical Reformed Church. These two congregations have a common place of worship which they own in common and which they alternately use and enjoy. They had unitedly determined upon the erection of a new church building, and having adopted plans and specifications for the proposed building by united and concurrent action, they appointed a building committee composed of four members, two from each congregation, and two additional advisory members the pastors of the several congregations, and empowered them to contract for the erection of the proposed building. This committee determined on five building contractors from whom they would solicit separate bids, and appointed several of its members to see the contractors named, and furnish each with a copy of the plans and specifications adopted, and report the bids received to the joint committee of the trustees of the several congregations for them to act upon. The plaintiff was among those invited to bid, and his bid was the lowest. The congregations meanwhile having concluded to adopt in the construction of the building a different material than that specified in the proposals, rejected all the bids received, and asked for new bids on the specifications as thus amended. New bids were received and of these plaintiff's bid was again lowest. Notwithstanding such fact, the bid of another contractor, somewhat higher than that of plaintiff, was accepted and the contract was so awarded. It was the contention of the plaintiff, and he so testified, that before submitting his bid, it was represented to him by two members of the building committee that the committee had decided that instead of advertising for bids they would confine the bidding to five contractors, plaintiff being one, and that the understanding was that whichever bidder should be the lowest the contract should be awarded to him; and that it was with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Triffin v. Thomas
...436, 439-440, 406 A.2d 1120, 1122 (1979). Without such assent there can be no enforceable agreement. Rissmiller v. Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, 268 Pa. 41, 110 A. 740 (1920); Courier Times, Inc. v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc., 300 Pa.Super. 40, 54, 445 A.2d 1288, 1295 (1982); Hahne......
-
Cohen v. Johnson
...Co. v. Standard Chemical Co., 291 Pa. 85, 139 A. 615; Edgcomb v. Clough, 275 Pa. 90 at page 103, 118 A. 610; Rissmiller v. Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, 268 Pa. 41, 110 A. 740; Brown v. Finney, 53 Pa. 373, 378 (a coal While an offer may be accepted by conduct (Gum, Inc., v. Felton, 341......
-
Harmotta v. Bender
...oaths as jurors." (Appellants' Brief at 7). The appellants claim that our Supreme Court's holding in Rissmiller v. Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, 268 Pa. 41, 110 A. 740 (1920), supports their argument that Catholics who are members of the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese should be disqualified......
-
Fenstermacher v. Philadelphia National Bank
...bid with the right to reject any bid. See Fraim v. Lincoln University, 428 Pa. 436, 239 A.2d 305 (1968); Rissmiller v. Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, 268 Pa. 41, 110 A. 740 (1920); Jaxtheimer v. Sharpsville Boro., 238 Pa. 42, 85 A. 994 (1913) and Leskie v. Haseltine, 155 Pa. 98, 25 A. 8......