Kelly v. McGehee

Citations

• 137 Pa. 443
• 20 A. 623
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 986

Syllabus

<p>(а) A mechanics’ lien against L. McG., “ owner or reputed owner ” and “ G. McG., her husband,” averred that the materials were furnished with her “ knowledge and consent, .... at her request and the request of her said husband, for the improvement of her separate estate, . . . .for and about the erection and construction and upon the credit of the building,” etc.</p> <p>(б) It also averred that she was the owner of the building and of the ground on which it was erected, and that the materials “ so furnished were actually applied to the improvement of L. McG.’s separate estate, and were necessary for the use and enjoyment of her separate property: ”</p> <p>1. The said claim contained, either in express terms or by necessary implication, all the averments that were essential to a valid mechanics’ lien against the estate of a married woman; and, therefore, there was no error in discharging a rule to show cause why the lien should not be stricken off: Einstein v. Jamison, 96 Pa. 403.</p> <p>2. On the trial of the issue in a scire facias upon such lien, while there was evidence tending to sustain the averments of the plaintiff’s claim, yet, there being evidence in denial thereof, it was clearly the province of the jury, and not of the court, to consider the testimony and determine the facts.</p>