Auto Security Co. v. Mickens

Citations

• 80 Pa. Super. 462
• 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Automobiles—Repairs — Lien — Sufficiency of contract to support lien — Essentials—Proof—Failure to agree upon price.</p> <p>In order to give the party doing repair work upon an automobile a lien for his proper charges, it is sufficient for him to prove that the assent of the owner was given in response to his request for authority to proceed with the work. If no reference was made to the price it will be implied that the work and materials were to be paid for at their value. The owner cannot knowingly receive the benefit in the enhancement of the value of his property and then decline to pay for it.</p> <p>A contract to pay for repairs to ail automobile is sufficiently established by proof that the owner when asked if it was all right to do the work, replied “All right go ahead with it.”</p> <p>Names — Fictitious names — Registration-—Replevin — Intervening defendant — Claim for lien — Act of May 10,1921, P. L. J/-65.</p> <p>An intervening defendant, in replevin, who sets up a claim for repairs, as a lien, against the automobile replevied is not, in the usual acceptation of the term, bringing a suit. The fact that such defendant had not registered the fictitious name, under which he was doing business, at the time the contract for repairs was made does not deprive him of his right to maintain his lien, nor does his neglect to register, before filing his claim, debar him. The Act of May 10, 1921, P. L. 465, amending the Act of June 28, 1911, P. L. 645, was not intended to apply to such situations.</p>