Este v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 215, Oct. T., 1904, by-defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1903, No. 7316, M. L. D., discharging rule to strike off mechanic’s lien in case of Charles Este v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, owner or reputed owner, and Marcus F. Seely et al., trading as Seely, Son & Company, contractors. • Rule to strike off mechanic’s lien. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The appellee was a subcontractor who furnished material to the contractors to be used in a building erected for the appellant. The claimant having filed his lien against the property, the appellant, by petition, moved the court to strike off the lien because the claimant did not give to the owner such notice of his intention to file a claim as is required by the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431. It is admitted in the petition that a notice was given in the following form:
“ You will please take notice that it is my intention to file a *523claim against the premises owned by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ettinger v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Rush v. AbleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Calhoun v. MahonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- McClintock v. RushSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
3Cited by14 opinions
- Tesauro v. BAIRDSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Delmont Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Kenver Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Ott v. DuPlan Silk Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Logan Lumber Co. v. KnappSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Day v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.