The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D signed duplicate contracts in writing, covering the construction of a Turkish bath house in D's land. P signed both copies of the contract wherein D's signature was attached, and the contract price therein named was $33,721. ice therein named was $33,721. When D signed them, the contract price stated in each was $23,200. P held a contract under which he was to receive the larger sum, while D held a contract for the same work, under which he was to pay only the smaller sum. It was the fraud of the architect who created this mess. P and D did not discover the discrepancy between the two writings until after the building was substantially completed. The architect was indicted, but he left the Commonwealth and escaped punishment. P wanted his remaining $10,500. An auditor found that the market value of the labor and materials furnished by P, not including the customary charge for the supervision of the work, was $33,499.30 and that their total cost to P was $32,950.96. He found that the land and building have cost D much more than their market value. The increase in the market value was $22,000. Neither P nor D had anything to do with the fraud. The trial court found in favor of D and P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.