Skip to main content
· 1/3/1916

O'Kane v. Murray

Citations

  • 252 Pa. 60
  • 97 A. 94
  • 1916 Pa. LEXIS 569

Syllabus

<p>Mechanics’ liens — Agreement of sale — Improvements ordered by intended purchaser — Mechanics’ Lien Act of June 1,1901, P. L. J^Sl —Notice—Acceptance by attorney — Fraud—Practice, O. P.</p> <p>1. Unless a claimant brings his case within Section 4, of the Mechanics’ Lien Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, making liable an owner who shall suffer or permit any person, acting as if he were the owner, to make a contract for which a claim can be filed, without objecting thereto at the time, the lien attaches only to the interest or estate in the premises of the person for whom the building is erected.'</p> <p>2. Compliance with Section 21 of such act, requiring the claimant within one month after the filing of the claim to serve a notice upon the owner of the fact of the filing of the same, and to file an affidavit setting forth the fact and manner of such service, is a prerequisite to the validity of the lien. The acceptance of service by the attorney of a defendant is insufficient.</p> <p>3. In a proceeding on a scire facias sur mechanics’ lien it appeared that one of the defendants had entered into an agreement with the other for the sale of the former’s house and lot to the latter at a stipulated price, a small payment being made at the time of the agreement, the delivery of the deed and payment of the balance to take place five months later; that a month later plaintiff entered into an agreement with the purchaser to provide all materials and perform the work of remodeling the building; that the balance of the purchase-money of the property was not paid when due and the sale was not completed at that time, and thereafter the owner leased the property to the intended purchaser with an option to purchase. After the completion of the work plaintiff filed a mechanics’ lien, making the owner and intended purchaser parties defendant. No notice of the filing of the claim was given to the intended purchaser himself, but notice was accepted by his attorneys. It appeared that

Judges: Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.