Bohem v. Seabury

Citations

• 141 Pa. 594
• 21 A. 674
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1109

Syllabus

<p>(a) A mechanics’-lien claim was filed by Bohem, successor to Geissinger & Bohem, against Seabury as owner, for a portion only of work done under an entire contract between Geissinger and Seabury, but with no averment that the contractor had completed the contract, or had been excused or prevented therefrom:</p> <p>1. The claim as filed failing to aver performance of the entire contract or any relief of the contractor therefrom, and, moreover, as there was no assignment of the contract to the claimant the latter was a stranger thereto, it was not error to strike the claim from the record as defective.</p> <p>2. The fact that Geissinger, subsequent to the contract, entered into partnership with Bohem, and that the latter was the legal successor of said firm, did not create a contract relation between him and Seabury, or authorize him to file a lien for work done under a contract between Geissinger and Seabury.</p>