Hiestand v. Keath
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 167, Oct. T., 1909, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., Mechanic’s Lien Docket No. 7, p. 85, making absolute rule to strike off mechanic’s lien in case of E. Frank Hiestand, Henry S. Hiestand and George Hiestand, partners trading and doing business as B. F. Hiestand and Sons v. Willis Keath. Rule to strike off mechanic's lien. Before Landis, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 167, Oct. T., 1909, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., Mechanic’s Lien Docket No. 7, p. 85, making absolute rule to strike off mechanic’s lien in case of E. Frank Hiestand, Henry S. Hiestand and George Hiestand, partners trading and doing business as B. F. Hiestand and Sons v. Willis Keath. Rule to strike off mechanic's lien. Before Landis, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order making absolute rule to strike off mechanic’s lien.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The lien, which the learned court below struck off, described the structure to be charged, thus: “One double two-story frame house, to be used as a dwelling house.” After the lien was filed, the owner presented a petition praying to have it stricken off. Some formal defects, of a minor character, were alleged, but these were cured by an amendment duly allowed by the court. The main allegation of the petition, however, remained, viz.: That the petitioner had erected “two adjoining frame dwelling houses,” and that the claimant had filed a single lien against both contrary to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Burger v. S. R. Moss Cigar Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Stoke & Co. v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Cox v. CroftSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hiestand v. KeathSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910