Loasby v. Irvin
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 62, Oct. T., 1916, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1914, No. 4055, M. L. D., on verdict for plaintiff in case of Arthur W. Loasby and W. Hobart Porter, Ancillary Receivers of Pierce, Butler and Pierce Mfg. Co., v. Harold C. Irvin, Owner or Reputed Owner and Contractor and J. Willison Smith, Registered Owner. Scire facias sur mechanics’ lien.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 62, Oct. T., 1916, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1914, No. 4055, M. L. D., on verdict for plaintiff in case of Arthur W. Loasby and W. Hobart Porter, Ancillary Receivers of Pierce, Butler and Pierce Mfg. Co., v. Harold C. Irvin, Owner or Reputed Owner and Contractor and J. Willison Smith, Registered Owner. Scire facias sur mechanics’ lien. Before Patterson, J. At the trial it appeared that on November 11, 1912, Harold C. Irvin entered into a written contract with James Morris, a plumber, to supply the heating apparatus Tor thirty-one…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, P. J.,
On the trial in the court below it was not denied that the materials for which payment was claimed, were furnished as alleged, and that they were not paid for. The defense was that Morris, the plumber, through whom they were furnished, had agreed that he would not file liens and that the legal plaintiff had no right to file such lien. The issue presented narrowed down to a dispute *233as to a single fact. The plaintiff claimed the right to recover, for the reason that it was distinctly and expressly agreed by the defendant Irvin, owner, that liens should be filed in case…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pierce, Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co. v. RogersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915