Legal Opinion

Rosenheck v. Stape

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 1, 1938No. Appeal, 261Published

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The judgment is affirmed on the able opinion of Judge Cunningham of the Superior Court, 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 357. In answering the question of that Court, we hold that Ward v. Patterson, 46 Pa. 372; Hershey v. Shenk, 58 Pa. 382, and Hunter v. Lanning, 76 Pa. 25, are merely examples of what did not amount to due prosecution, and the Superior Court was correct in so intimating.

Section 10 of the Mechanics’ Lien Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, here in controversy, is merely a legislative declaration of what constitutes due prosecution of the writ of sci. fa. It is therefore not special…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hunter v. LanningSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
  2. Ward v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
  3. Hershey v. ShenkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
  4. Fuellhart v. ThompsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  5. Rosenheck v. StapeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API