Lightfoot v. Krug
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county.* This was a scire facias by Krug & Kohlman against Jacob Light-foot, on a mechanic’s claim for $53.06, which was filed against a “one-storied brick kitchen, or back building,” erected on the easterly half of lot No. 40, in Bell, Edwards & Breed’s plan of lots in the borough' of Birmingham, “being twelve by fourteen feet square, and one story high.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county.* This was a scire facias by Krug & Kohlman against Jacob Light-foot, on a mechanic’s claim for $53.06, which was filed against a “one-storied brick kitchen, or back building,” erected on the easterly half of lot No. 40, in Bell, Edwards & Breed’s plan of lots in the borough' of Birmingham, “being twelve by fourteen feet square, and one story high.” The defendant filed the following affidavit of defence:— “ Before me, personally came John Lightfoot, agent for Jacob Lightfoot, who for defence saith, that the alleged building, against which the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Thompson, J.
The new erection was a kitchen or back building. Was this subject .to a lien of the mechanic? The court below held that it was. In this they were right. It is clearly within the principle, of Nelson v. Campbell, 4 Casey 156, and is ruled by it.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kolb v. Reformed Episcopal Church of ReconciliationSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Thomas v. HinkleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Lauriello v. Calio, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1961