Legal Opinion

Schoser v. Chaplin

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County

Decided January 25, 1937No. 19Published

1Opinion of the Court

Coughlin, J.,

Rule was taken in the aforesaid case, allegedly pursuant to the provisions of section 23 of the Mechanic’s Lien Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431. Coupled with this as a basis for the motion, defendant cites section 52 of the Mechanic’s Lien Act. The fundamental reason alleged for striking off the lien is that it was not filed within the proper period, nor notice of the filing served in accordance with the statute. However, a review of the claim indicates that the decision as to whether or not claimant in the mechanic’s lien so failed is dependent upon when the work was finished. If…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. O'Kane v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  2. Hiestand v. KeathSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  3. Thompson v. RadellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  4. Northern Electrical Manufacturing Co. v. Columbia Brewing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API