Legal Opinion

Pittsburgh v. Bucanelly Construction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 20, 1930No. Appeal, 84PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The use-plaintiff furnished certain material which entered into the construction of a reservoir built by the legal plaintiff, and, not being paid by the Bucanelly Construction Company, contractor and first named defendant, it, the use-plaintiff, brought the present suit, on a bond furnished by the Southern Surety Company, second named defendant. The court below properly held that the Act of May 10,1917, P. L. 158, amended by the Act of May 6, 1925, P. L. 546, had no proper application to a bond given in connection with the construction of a reservoir, and the recital in the bond…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Patterson v. New Eagle BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. City of Pgh. v. Commercial Casualty Ins.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Portland Sand & Gravel Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Commonwealth v. Great American Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API