Gower v. Harakal Et Ux.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Stadteeld, J.,
This is an action in assumpsit. Plaintiff, a contractor and lumber dealer, seeks to recover the sum of $332.70 for lumber, material and labor furnished the defendants in the years 1927 and 1928. It was conceded that the lumber, material and labor went into the dwelling occupied by defendants as husband and wife. Plaintiff claims the material was furnished at the special instance and request of both defendants.
Joseph Harakal defended upon the ground that the statute of limitations had run as against the claim. His wife, Anna Harakal, denied that the goods had been sold…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mastel v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Newtown T. T. Co. v. Underw'd (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Snyder v. Reading CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- DuBois Lumber & Coal Co. v. StrouseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Draude & Donnelly, Inc. v. Alfred Wolstenholme & Son, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Northampton Brewery Corp. v. LandeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Commonwealth v. SierakowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- De Feo v. Dibacco Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Heitz v. Bridge Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Kelly v. CrawfordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.