Brown v. Myers & Rathfon

Citations

• 145 Pa. 17
• 23 A. 254
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 755

Syllabus

<p>1. A mechanics’ lien, filed by a sub-contractor under the act of June 16, 1836, P. L. 696, and its supplements, setting forth, under a single date, a claim for a round sum “for painting and glazing” done under a contract between the claimant and the builder to which the owner was not a party, without other specification of the nature and amount of the work and materials and the time when they were done and furnished, is invalid.</p> <p>2. The decision in Young v. Lyman, 9 Pa. 449, holding that work done and materials furnished, under a contract with the owner of the building, need not be specifically described in the claim, does not apply to the case of a sub-contractor; and if he would continue his lien, he must set forth all the particulars mentioned in § 12 of the act of 183.6 : Lee v. Burke, 66 Pa. 336 ; Russell v. Bell, 44 Pa. 47; Gray v. Dick, 97 Pa. 142.</p> <p>3. A description of the building against which a lien is filed, by specifying its street and number and the adjoiners of its curtilage, without naming the city, borough or town in which it is situated, is not a sufficient compliance with the requirement in § 12 of said act, that the claim shall set forth “the locality of the building.....and such other matters of description as shall be sufficient to identify the same.”</p>