H. G. Vogel Co. v. Grape Products Co.

Citations

• 57 Pa. Super. 501
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 225

Syllabus

<p>Mechanic’s lien — Lien as evidence — Evidence.</p> <p>I. It is not error for the court on the trial of a scire facias sur mechanic’s lien to admit the lien itself in evidence where the sole purpose of the offer is to show that the lien had been filed.</p> <p>2. While the lien itself has no evidential value to establish the truth of the statements which it contains, no harm is done in admitting it in evidence, where it is neither read to the jury, nor sent out with the jury-.</p> <p>Mechanic’s lien — Mistaken description of land — Amendment—Constitutional law — Acts of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, and April 17, 1906, p. l. m.</p> <p>3. Where a mechanic’s lien accurately describes the structure and its locality, but fails to include, through a mistake, a portion of the land on which the building was erected, the defect in the description of the land may be amended; and a purchaser at a judicial sale of the premises prior to the amendment cannot claim protection as an intervenor under see. 54 of the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, inasmuch as he had constructive notice of the lien and its defect; and all the more is this the ease where it appears that he had actual notice at the sale that the purchaser might withhold sufficient of the purchase money to secure him against the lien if its validity should be established.</p> <p>4. Section 54 of the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, relating to the amendment of a mechanic’s lien is not such a divergence from and such “an advance upon the law as it stood prior to the constitution of 1874,” as to render the section unconstitutional.</p> <p>5. The power to permit an amendment which does not go to the substance of a mechanic’s lien is not an advance upon the law as it stood prior to the constitution of 1874.</p>