Porter Screen Mfg. Co. v. Hunter
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 78, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1914, No. 3204, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Porter Screen Mfg. Co. v. W. K. Hunter and Thomas Gamón, Jr., owner or reputed owner. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien for work done and materials furnished in installing wire window and door-screens in an apartment house.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 78, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1914, No. 3204, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Porter Screen Mfg. Co. v. W. K. Hunter and Thomas Gamón, Jr., owner or reputed owner. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien for work done and materials furnished in installing wire window and door-screens in an apartment house. Before Finletter, J. At the trial John C. O’Callahan was asked this question: Q. Are fly screens or screens such as have been referred to here, considered in the construction of a house as part of the house? (Objected to.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The Act of 1836 made “every building erected, etc., subject to a lien for the payment of all debts contracted for work done or materials furnished for or about the erection or construction of the same” and the Act of 1901 makes “Every structure or other improvement” subject to a like lien. It is further provided in the latter act that “Any labor or materials furnished in completely fitting up or equipping the structure or other improvement for the purpose for which it was intended shall be treated as part of the erection or construction thereof.” Neither of these acts…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hall v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Sax v. School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Coverdill v. HeathSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Scofield v. Lordsburg Municipal School Dist.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1949