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

  1. Bucci v. Detroit Fire & Marine Ins.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. Murphy v. TaylorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  3. Carroll v. HannanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. McAmbley v. MartinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Swalina v. PisalskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Churilla v. BarnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Earl Knudsen v. The Torrington CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
  3. Sun Sales Corp. v. Block Land, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
  4. Sun Sales Corporation v. Block Land, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API