Malone v. Hosfeld

Citations

• 53 Pa. Super. 134
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 144

Syllabus

<p>Mechanic’s lien — Alteration or construction — Act of June J, 1901, P. L. 431- — Constitutional law. »</p> <p>1. Where in a proceeding under a mechanic’s lien, the evidence descriptive of changes made in an old building is uncontradicted, the duty is cast upon the trial judge of determining whether the structure against which the claim was filed was an altered or a new one.</p> <p>2. Under the decisions prior to the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, it was the extent and character of the alterations, and not the mere change of the purpose of the building that was the test by which to determine whether they constituted an erection or construction of the building, or mere alteration. The idea which ran through all the cases was newness of structure in the main mass of the building — that entire change of external appearance which denoted a different building from that which gave place to it, though into the composition of the new structure some of the old parts may have entered.</p> <p>3. If see. three of the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, is to be construed so to extend the right to file a lien for “erection and construction,” to cases not coming up to the standard set by the prior decisions, it must be deemed to be clearly divergent from and an advance upon the mechanic’s hen law as it stood prior to the time when the present constitution went into effect and, therefore, is, to that extent, in conflict with sec. 7, art. Ill, of the constitution.</p>