Perigo v. Vanhorn
This text of 2 Miles 359 (Perigo v. Vanhorn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
this was not an erection or construction of a building, the auditor was right in rejecting the claim of the ex-ceptant. For remodelling or repairing, the mechanic or material man has no lien given him by the act. There being no claim for an issue here, the fact is submitted to our determination. Upon the whole evidence, we think it was an alteration and repair of an old building. The walls were the same, though newly faced, and the store was merely modernized in the interior. The owner continued to live in it while the work was going on.
Report confirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Miles 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perigo-v-vanhorn-pactcomplphilad-1840.