HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-04661
t~~~,~~.~,:;;;
-~,~}tl~r
:.~~;1t)~;!,~G~;F:'~ :
1~'~'r'"
y\~~1f~'~,_-i<d>
\..-.~'
F~'rJ: ::-':";
t:-.:.-,. '>'__
~~i;{~{~;: ;. ~-"
;~i~--" --L,
..-,- ~. , .
'/,1~..: _:__:.
.......
"~
.:3,
::t
.
", .'. -.\
..
'.
,
,
"
I
.\
"
l.~ !
"
"
;.1,
"
"
"
, . ..-;
" I, 'if
',.; j",
, , ;\,'-
"
"
" 'I"
,
"
, ,
"
, ,
"
i
:'\
Ii
<,
"
, ,
'-I'
,
"
"
II"
;.
f.,IAQ "''' rjIJ.
09-3-04
COMMON PLEAS NOTIFICATION
REQUEST FORM
PLAINTIFF 'jA\lI- Mil ~1)(lll(S.q
~LOYDS SEPTIC SERVICES I
95 ZION RD.
CARLISLE, PA 17013
L th'_vl..lIC:'n-l
VS.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND
WN.1Nt11on
GLENN R. FARNER
"""H' 5002 LENKER STREET
MECHANICSDURG, PA
I''''''''' (717) 761-0230
17055-0000
DEFENDANL
fJ<ANGAN IS, THOMAS .~I .,,,IIT."
407 MEADOW DR.
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
L
I
GLENN R. FARNER
5002 LENKER STREET
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055-0000
Dockel No.: CV-00002 0 7-9 5
Dale Fllod: 6/14/95
-l
.
Dlsposlllon Dale: 0/03/95
Pleaso be advlsod thnt nn appont hns boon filod in tho nbova cnptioned coso. Kindly usa this lorm to indlcoto th~ rosults
In this coso, Gnd roturn 10 lho Issuing nulhorlty (lis led nbovo).
BESUL T OF APPEAL Common Pleas Judge
SUMMARY APPEAL
APPEAL STRICKEN. opponl hn. boon di.rllowod.
APPEAL DISCONTINUED. npponl hno boen di.onllnued by nppellnnt
DISTRICT JUSTICE DECISION UPHELD. coun ho.,onchod .nmo docl.lon .. o,lglnnl di",lc' lu,lico doc Is ion.
_ dishict Justice office Is to collcct remaining fino,/co,ts.
APPEAL SUCCESSFUL. court hR& ,enchod docl&lon fnvornblo (0 dofendant.
lull.olund 10 bo issued by dish lei JUStiCD offico.
pnrtlnl refund tn bo Issued by dlSlric' justlco ollico.
REVISED DISTRIBUTION OF FINES AND COSTS
It dIstrict justice otllco Is to lsauo n pnrtlal.olund. plot\&o Indicato any noW distllbullon in tho amount Is)
01 flnol nnd costs os 0 rosult of tho court's doclslon.
FINE
COUNTY CRT COST
STATE CRT COST
STATE CST!
HEARING COST
EMS
CAT
JCP
DYC
eye
CCD
--
OTHER(plooso .pocily)
CIVIL APPEAL
APPEAL STRICKEN. nppool hn. boon di.nllowod.
APPEAL DISCONTINUED. opponl ho. boon dlscontlnuod by oppollont
DISTRICT JUSTICE DECISION UPHELD. coun ho. roochod Iho .omo docl.lon a. 'ho dl.I,lcllu.'lco judgmont
OISTRlCT JUSTICE DECISION DISMISSED. COUll hn. lone hod . docl.lon 'ho' doo, nol concu' with 'ho dls"lcljU.tlcoludgmen1.
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WRIT STRICKEN. opponl hn. boon dlsollowod.
WRlf DISCONTINUED. wlit has hoon di!ocontinued by appellont.
DISTRICT JUSTICE DECISION SET ASIDE. tho coso will be .ehonrd due to luogulolity,lock of IUli,dictlon, or Imploper vonuo.
wnlT DiSMISSED. distrIct justice decision wn, not lound to ho tlnwed. Incklng jurisdiction. Of hnvlng Impfopor vonuo.
STATEMENT OF OBJECTION (Pl.... glvo a gono,ollummolY 01 Ih.101UI1I)
OOJECTION OISCON1INUr.O. ohjeclion hns bocn dirocol\linuod hy tho appallnnl
OUJECTION Ol:.NIEO . ohjcclion hns hen" denied by tho CoUlt 01 Coml11on Pion'
OUJEC110N 1I111t[lO' Rppoll","'& ohloctlon IlRro 'luun upl,old hy thu COUll 01 CornlUon 1)1005.
_...P_______------------.-
_-----...---n-.--~-..~~.. ..-.,-----...~-.----.~------.---. .------
---
FORM PRINTED:
9/06/95 13:49:00
AOIlC 729 95
LLOYDS SEPTIC SERVICE,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
NO. 4661 CIVIL 1995
THOMAS KANGANIS and
CLARA KANGANIS, his wife,
Defendants
COMPLAINT
NOW, comes Lloyds septic Service by its attorneys, MANCKE,
WAGNER, HERSHEY & TULLY, who files the following complaint.
1. Plaintiff, Lloyds septic Service, is a company organized
to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania having as
an address, 439 West North street, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendants, Thomas and Clara Kanganis, are adult
individuals residing at 407 Meadow Drive, camp Hill, Cumberland
County, pennsylvania.
3. On or about April 29, 1994, Plaintiff and Defendant
engaged in a contract for services by the Plaintiff in the form of
installation of a new sewer pipe at 47-49558 Carlisle Pike,
Mechanicsburg, pennsylvania.
4. Defendants agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $3,500.00,
and did make a down payment of $875.00.
5. Plaintiff at all times performed services in a reasonable
workman like manner and otherwise fulfilled all conditions
precedent under the contract to be paid,
Plaintiff did not complete the work In a good and workmanlike fashion and
specifically did not complBte the work in a timely fashion as well.
6. Admitted In part. It Is admitted that the Defandants have failed to pay
Plaintiff the amount of $2,625.00. It is denlad that the Defendants owe Plaintiff
$2,625.00.
7. Denied. It Is specifically denied that the Defendants are obligated to pay
Plaintiff the amount of $2,625.00 togethar with interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Defendants requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint together with costs.
NEW MATTER
8. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 7 are Incorporated herein by
reference.
9. The Defendants contracted with Plaintiff for the installation of a certain
sewer line at the total cost of $3,000.00.
10. Plaintiff indicated on its original quote a charge of $3,500.00 whi\lh
was a material mistake and in excess of the original agreement between the parties.
11. Defendants provided Plaintiff with a down payment in the amount of
$875.00.
2