Hoatz v. Patterson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Columbia county. Daniel Hoatz against Burd Patterson, reputed owner, and Thomas Dunlap, claiming to be owner. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Columbia county. Daniel Hoatz against Burd Patterson, reputed owner, and Thomas Dunlap, claiming to be owner. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien. Daniel Hoatz and Burd Patterson entered into an agreement, which was reduced to writing, by which the former contracted to furnish all the materials and build a furnace, casting-house, stables and houses necessarily appurtenant thereto, for Patterson, who contracted to pay therefor the sum of Í6000. Upon the completion of the work, Hoatz filed a claim for a balance of $1325, which he claimed to be due, under the provisions…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
It is useless to discuss all the points raised in the argument, as there is one point which is decisive against the lien. Hoatz, the claimant, made a special agreement with the defendant, Patterson, to erect certain buildings, particularly specifying them, for the gross sum of $5975, which amount was afterwards increased by another agreement to $6000. The contract was reduced to writing, and although not signed, yet there is no dispute that there was a contract, nor is there any difference as to its terms. This agreement is recognised by the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jones v. ShawhanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by10 opinions
- Moore-Mansfield Construction Co v. Indianapolis, Newcastle & Toledo Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Winder v. CaldwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1853
- Lee v. BurkeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Parrish & Hazard's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Young v. LymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.