Legal Opinion

Hood v. Norton

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 24, 1902No. Appeal, No. 111PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal, No. 111, Jan. T., 1901, by-plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1892, M. L. D. No. 207, making absolute rule to strike off names of terre-tenants and to set aside the service of scire facias on terretenants in case of James Hood to use of Joseph V. McCloskey v. Albert E. Norton, Charles A. Schwenck, H. Riggio, Mary A. Doebler, Thomas McCouch, Gabrielle H. Walton, Willard Walton, Theodore P. Reese, Eleanor Reese, N. B. Servoss, S. W. Lippincott,…

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

The mechanic’s lien in this case was filed June 18, 1892. It was apportioned among a number of buildings, the present owners of some of them being the appellees under deeds recorded before the writs of scire facias were issued to continue the lien and enforce the payment of the debt secured by it. The writs were issued May 24, 1897, in which, the pramipe having been followed, only the name of Albert E. Norton, owner, or reputed owner, of the properties at the time the lien was filed, appears as defendant. On June 20,1897, two days after the expiration of five years…

2Cases cited1 opinion

Haddington Methodist Episcopal Church v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885

3Cited by2 opinions

Borough of Avalon v. Shafer, Exrx.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
Commonwealth v. Shelley, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County1950