Legal Opinion
Samango v. Hobbs
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided July 20, 1950No. Appeal, No. 76PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Dithrich, J.,
The mechanic’s lien in this case is fatally defective for the reason that notice of the filing of the claim was not served upon the owner; and the judgment entered thereon is invalid for the further reason that the required affidavit was not filed with the prsecipe for the writ.
• Section 21 of the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, as amended by section 1 of the Act of April 5, 1917, P. L. 42, 49 PS §131, provides, in part: “Within one month after the filing of the claim, the claimant shall serve a notice upon the owner of the fact of the filing of the claim, . . . and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Romberger v. RombergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Johnson v. Royal InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- O'Kane v. MurraySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Polis v. RussellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Kingsdorf v. Frank Gamburg, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Oswald v. WB Public Square Associates, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Tesauro v. BAIRDSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Tri State Industries, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Williams v. WadeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Regency Investments, Inc. v. Inlander Ltd.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.