Kurrie v. Cottingham
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 61, Jan. T., 1904, by-defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dee. T., 1903, No. 5718, M. L. D., discharging rule to show cause why an attorney should not enter an appearance and strike off a mechanic’s lien, in case of George R. Kurrie v. Lewis K. Cottingham, Receiver of Belgravia Apartments Company. Appeal from order discharging rule to show cause why an attorney should not enter an appearance and discontinue, satisfy or strike off a mechanic’s lien.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 61, Jan. T., 1904, by-defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dee. T., 1903, No. 5718, M. L. D., discharging rule to show cause why an attorney should not enter an appearance and strike off a mechanic’s lien, in case of George R. Kurrie v. Lewis K. Cottingham, Receiver of Belgravia Apartments Company. Appeal from order discharging rule to show cause why an attorney should not enter an appearance and discontinue, satisfy or strike off a mechanic’s lien. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
The plaintiff filed a lien for work and materials against a building known as “ The Belgravia Apartment House ” in Philadelphia for 16,654.66, setting out the names of those he alleged to be the contractors and owners or reputed owners. There was a written contract between the principal contractors, Machin & Brown and DeHoff, the owner; the plaintiff in the lien was a subcontractor and agreed no lien should be filed for work and materials furnished by him, and that if any were filed any attorney might appear, discontinue, satisfy or strike it off. Before a sci. fa. was issued on…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lubetsky v. DEANSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958