Legal Opinion

Kirpichnikoff v. Finkel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 17, 1927No. Appeal, 183PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Schaffer,

This is an action on a building contract wherein the contractor seeks to recover a balance which he alleges to be due him. The verdict favored plaintiff and defendant (the owner) has appealed.

The contract contains a “no-lien clause” as follows: “The contractor for himself and all his subcontractors and all persons acting through or under him, covenant and agree that no mechanics liens or claims shall be filed or maintained by him, or them, or any of them, against the said building or lot of ground appurtenant thereto, for or on account of the work or labor done…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hunter v. BremerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  2. Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  3. Sensenig v. ParrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  4. Moore v. Carter, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1892
  5. Murphy v. BearSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lower Yoder Township School District v. Title Trust & Guarantee Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  2. Greenberg v. Koegler, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1947
  3. Tallman v. MooreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API