Day v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Citations

• 35 Pa. Super. 586
• 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 86

Syllabus

<p>Mechanic's lien — Subcontractor—Notice of intent to file lien.</p> <p>Where a written notice by a subcontractor to the owner, of an intention to file a mechanic’s lien has attached to it a copy of the contract between the subcontractor and the contractor, which does not in express terms refer to certain specifications under which the subcontract- , or’s work was done, the notice will not be deemed insufficient, if it appears as a fact that the specifications themselves were in the possession of the owner. Even if the notice were deemed insufficient on this account, an amendment made after trial and verdict which brought the specifications on the record, would cure the defect.</p> <p>Where, in such a case, the article supplied by the subcontractor was a patented device composed of various parts of iron, wood, etc., the subcontractor was not bound to set out in his notice an itemized statement of the different articles and materials of the device as a whole.</p> <p>The object of the notice is to inform the owner of the demand and the nature thereof, in order that he may require payment of the contractor, or in default thereof withhold the amount from the contract price. A substantial compliance is sufficient, and this is shown to exist whenever enough appears on the face of the statement to enable the owner to ascertain the amount of the claim, its date and the nature and amount of the labor or material out of which it arises. Certainty to a common intent suffices.</p> <p>Where on the trial of a scire facias sur mechanic’s lien the evidence is conflicting as to the date when the work was finished and completed, the case is for the jury.</p>