Kinsley v. Buchanan
5 Watts 118
Opinion
Additional securities are, in their nature, cumulative; nor, where the parties' have not expressly or impliedly so stipulated, is there any reason why the one should be a relinquishment of the other. Accordingly, it has been determined, in one of the cases cited, that the acceptance of a bond is not an abandonment of a mechanic’s lien. That case is in point, and rules the present.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kinsley v. Buchanan, 5 Watts 118 (Pa. 1836).
5 Watts 118 (Kinsley v. Buchanan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mohnkern v. Pivirotto
20 Pa. D. & C. 218 (Centre County Court of Common Pleas, 1933)
Clayton v. Lienhard
167 A. 321 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
F. W. Wint Co. v. Snyder
7 Pa. D. & C. 684 (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)
Seibert v. Glasser Hosiery Co.
2 Pa. D. & C. 525 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
American Car & Foundry Co. v. Alexandria Water Co.
70 A. 867 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)
Doane v. Clinton
2 Utah 417 (Utah Supreme Court, 1880)
Shaw & Leigh v. First Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church
39 Pa. 226 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1861)
Butts v. Cuthbertson
6 Ga. 166 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1849)
Jones v. Shawhan
4 Watts & Serg. 257 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1842)