Thirsk v. Evans
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 196, Jan. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1903, M. L. D. No. 3564, making absolute rule to strike off mechanic’s lien in case of George H. Thirst v. Samuel W. Evans, Owner, and George W. Pierson, Contractor. Rule to strike off mechanic’s lien. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was the refusal of permission to amend the mechanic’s lien.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb,. Justice Elkin,
The questions involved in this case arise on a scire facias sur mechanic’s lien under the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431. Evans is the owner; Pierson the contractor; Thirsk the subcontractor. _ Evans and Pierson entered into a contract in writing, providing for the construction of a building according to the plans and specifications made part of the contract and remaining in their possession. Subsequently, Pierson by written agreement, sublet certain portions of the work to be done and materials to be furnished, to Thirsk. The agreement between Pierson and Thirsk…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Knelly v. HorwathSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- McCormick v. LawtonNebraska Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by29 opinions
- American Car & Foundry Co. v. Alexandria Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Intercoastal Lumber Distributors, Inc. v. DerianSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- McVey v. KaufmannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Burger v. S. R. Moss Cigar Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Hunsicker v. WaidelichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.