OCR Text |
Show ijSIcision returned SFik ELEVATOR CASE ymi'i I.AKH M ' By unani-Kd-L'loa relay the supreme H'ltali ordered t judgment KtTDrd district court In the case K m. u Walker lies company Kjttt' Ani-i-i. .hi com any JBkI. ana Ins' .1 1 Cut 1 '. Ami r -!!(;, tv , mi ordi red to pay W , y, uu t i '-"in April 1, cratotal 0! neatly 53,000. JK.. ralty tump iri built 'I '- Walk-Kb-,V building. :iv. ar.lin- the con-' con-' JK;:- contr:.i .1 ' - Me wart' M"ol Wo.- Y'-rlc. The latter E sto an apr.- m m with the ..1 a fc F...it'.r -.in l-'ran- 1 lb'.- Installation r tho battery kHmtor.- In the ding . nd EtaD Surc'.y rant'-1 i flKaformanee of this u b-contract. I Lw work Ik - third set 1 1 ors,, had Biriel and price, 1 ;i-niii-i-.suiii-H!t) comp.iny had Inst a I led e 1 - , Eol another iii.il;- ri i su l rlv, In .in Mm -, the E' :- conipany had an acceptance tbe are:dt' i ti;- .ators us HLc!or'. and had been iail S.1?,-Elpulated S.1?,-Elpulated In th- 1 "ntraet. V. pruli.n, 1 -i a 1 in tho district Iresulttd In tn- si:l -mission to tlu-rof tlu-rof th' gustlon as to whetln-r tin. hrtor y n v. t rs v. .- Victory at the ttm tin la I Pi of thn price v. .is paul thc Ifarturer? The jury d- Ided that: roLii. cuvlitlon of the elevat-u elevat-u known to the contractor and tally company, and '-n tiiii l-a.sls I dtnrict court cleared the surely Iu7 of liability. ft rurircrff ourt holds that, un-Ccontra.i un-Ccontra.i velth th Purrty com-I com-I ts Flgned, it v. a-- Inunaterln mtr tho building ovsn-r.s and 'con- Ifcrj had such knowledge at the i anl th'.-n 1. 1 . nly rjue.i-I rjue.i-I Of law ar Involved in the c isc. mtlt premises It re-, crm s tin li -I-court and orders judgment for : '' with Int. rrst t- 1- en- |