Pierce, Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co. v. Rogers

Citations

• 60 Pa. Super. 293
• 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 184

Syllabus

<p>Mechanic’s lien — “Contractor”—Payment for material by owner.</p> <p>Where a dealer in plumbing and heating supplies accepts from a general contractor a proposal for the plumbing and heating of a number of houses, but under an express agreement made with the owner personally that he would pay to the dealer directly for such material, the dealer is a.contractor, and entitled to file a mechanic’s lien for the materials furnished.</p> <p>Where a materialman contracts directly with the owner of a building operation to furnish material for a number of houses, and the owner after certain of'the houses are completed, and before the remainder are begun becomes insolvent and is declared a bankrupt, the materialman- is justified in not completing the balance of the contract, and may file a lien-against the houses completed for the material which he furnished; and in so doing if he charges more for the material than the contract would warrant, this may bei established at the trial, but not on a rule to strike off the lien.</p> <p>If in such'a case the houses which were completed are adjoining, or have contiguous curtilage, the claimant may determine the amoünt to be apportioned to each of the houses, but the justness of the apportionment may be inquired into at the trial.</p> <p>Where a mechanic’s lien has been apportioned amongst several houses, and the lien shows on its face the various items furnished with the dates, and that all the material was furnished within the statutory time, the lien will not be stricken off because it fails to show the items of material which went into each house. ■ If none of the material is actually furnished to a particular house within six months, this may be shown at the trial, but is no ground for striking off the lien.</p>