Legal Opinion

Lietka v. HAMBERSKY

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 20, 1950No. Appeal, 27PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion bv

Hirt, J.,

In the performance of a contract between the parties, plaintiff had installed plumbing and plumbing fixtures in a new house then in the course of construction on the land of the defendant, Eugene Hambersky. He contracted directly with Hambersky and was not a subcontractor. On August 13, 1918, plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien against Hambersky’s land in the sum of $1,141.18, alleged to be the amount due and unpaid after full performance of his contract. The validity of the lien was not questioned on technical or other grounds. A writ of scire facias issued and thereafter…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Arzinger v. BaughmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  2. Hopkins Manufacturing Co. v. KettererSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  3. Pontius v. NesbitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
  4. Stofflett v. KressSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  5. Jordan's PetitionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Universal Builders Supply, Inc. v. Shaler Highlands Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  2. Grant v. De OtteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Cherry v. Empire Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  4. Philip Morris Inc. v. Pittsburgh Penguins, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. Campbell, Rea, Hayes & LargeDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1980

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API