Legal Opinion
Hoover, for Use v. Paterni
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided May 6, 1940No. Appeal, 133PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cubiam,
The defendant, M. Paterni, entered into the following agreement with Joseph Hoover, an architect, relative to additions and alterations to the former’s restaurant:
“I, M. Paterni, hereby authorize Joseph Hoover a registered architect of Pittsburgh, Pa., to prepare complete working drawings for the additions and alterations to a restaurant at 5802 Forbes St. I agree to pay the above mentioned architect the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100) for this service, Ten ($10) Dollars upon the signing of this agreement, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged; and Ninety Dollars ($90) upon the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bucci v. Detroit Fire & Marine Ins.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Murphy v. TaylorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Carroll v. HannanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- McAmbley v. MartinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Swalina v. PisalskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
3Cited by4 opinions
- Churilla v. BarnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Earl Knudsen v. The Torrington CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Sun Sales Corp. v. Block Land, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Sun Sales Corporation v. Block Land, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972