Legal Opinion

Donatucci v. Utterback

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 27, 1979No. 458PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MONTGOMERY, Judge:

Defendants have appealed from an order denying their petition to strike or open a default judgment entered against them in an action of assumpsit based on a contract they had entered into with plaintiff to construct a building for them.

PETITION TO STRIKE

The only reason alleged in the petition to strike is that of lis pendens, i. e. that at the time the assumpsit action was filed there was pending in the same court a mechanics lien claim between the same parties based on the same contract.1 The lower court acted properly in denying this petition. We recognized in Hoffman…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Campbell v. Heilman Homes, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Maurice Goldstein Co., Inc. v. MargolinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Hoffman Lumber Co. v. MitchellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  4. Costanzo v. ChianeseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Romeo v. LooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Davis Cookie Co., Inc. v. WasleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Romeo v. LooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Romeo v. LooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API