Hiestand v. Keath

Citations

• 229 Pa. 149
• 78 A. 40
• 1910 Pa. LEXIS 563

Syllabus

<p>Mechanics’ liens — Act of June 4, 1001, P. L. 431 — Owner—Striking off liens — Matters dehors record — Statutes—Construction.</p> <p>1. It will be assumed, when the contrary does not appear, that in framing the “complete and exclusive system” embodied in the mechanic’s lien Act of June 4, 190J, P. L. 431, the legislative intent was to give but one adequate remedy to each party interested in the claim and in the property affected by the proceeding.</p> <p>2. Section 23 of the mechanic’s lien act of 1901, providing a remedy by petition and a rule thereon for “any party having a lien against, estate in, or charge upon the property included in such claim,” does not authorize the court, on application of the owner, to strike off a lien regular on its face for matters dehors the record.</p> <p>3. In construing sec. 23 of the act of 1901, as not applicable to the owner, the court will consider the fact that the sections immediately preceding and succeeding deal with the rights of others than the owner, and that if sec. 23 should be construed as applicable to the owner, its proper place in the statute would be immediately preceding or succeeding the sections providing for the scire facias.</p> <p>4. It is no argument in favor of a construction of sec. 23 as giving a remedy to the owner that he is entitled to more consideration or to a more speedy remedy than other parties in interest, or that the section in question does in fact furnish him a more speedy remedy than the scire facias.</p> <p>Mr. Justice Moschzisker dissents.</p>