Hamilton v. Means
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Keller, P. J.,
We shall not discuss all the reasons advanced by the appellants, the owners of the liened property, in their petition to strike off the mechanic’s lien filed by the appellee. -The following are sufficient to require the lien to be stricken off.(1) The Mechanic’s Lien Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, uses certain technical words, which are defined in the Act and used therein in the sense of those definitions. One of the words so defined is ‘contractor’. A claimant in filing his claim may use either the word so defined, or the meaning or definition ascribed to it. Thus…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Burrows v. CarsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Brant v. HartrickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Burrows v. CarsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Crane Co. v. RogersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
3Cited by10 opinions
- Marchak v. McClureSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Toll-Barkan Co. v. TOLLSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Russell M. Howe, Inc. v. BeloffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Arcady Farms Milling Co. v. SedlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Meyers Plumbing & Heating Supply Co. v. CasteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.