Langenheim v. Anschutz-Bradberry Co.

Citations

• 2 Pa. Super. 285
• 1896 Pa. Super. LEXIS 52

Syllabus

<p>Agency — Province of court and jury.</p> <p>Where an agency rests in parol and there is no dispute as to its terms and no ambiguity which needs explanation, it is for the court and not for the jury to determine its meaning and effect.</p> <p>Agency — Extent of powers of agent — Burden of proof.</p> <p>A party who attempts to avail himself of the acts of an agent must, in in order to charge the principal, prove the authority under which the agent acted. The burden of proof lies on him to establish the agency and its extent.</p> <p>Mechanic's lien — Agency—Architect—Implied powers of — -Act of May 18, 1887, P. L. 118.</p> <p>A supervising architect as such has no authority over the payment of debts incurred in the construction of a building or to determine in what manner such debts shall be paid or secured, nor can such employment be constructively enlarged so as to include that power and duty. His authority relating solely to the erection of the structure, and the character of the work and material employed, he is not an agent within the meaning of the act of May 18, 1887, P. L. 118, to receive notice of an intention to file a mechanic’s lien for additions.</p> <p>Mechanic's lien — Notice of intention to file lien — Act of May 18, 1887, P. L. 118 — Sufficiency thereof.</p> <p>While no particular form of words is necessary to give the notice required by the act of May 18, 1887, of an intention to file a mechanic’s lien for additions, such notice to be effective should be framed in language sufficiently clear and definite to inform the person notified that the material-man intends to file a lien under the act of assembly for the price of the material furnished by him in the construction of the building, and notice by material-men that “ if we do not get our money at that time we would look to the building for the payment of our bill” is not sufficient.</p>