Poole v. Union Passenger Railway Co.

Citations

• 1 Monag. 170
• 16 A. 736
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1292

Syllabus

<p>On a scire facias sur ■mechanics’ lien, the plaintiffs offered evidence to show that the material was used in the building, its price, and that it was ordered by the alleged contractors. The defendant owners averred and offered evidence to prove that the alleged contractors had no authority as contractors to build the building, that the material had been sold to the alleged contractors upon their personal credit, that the material-men, whose place of business was in Baltimore, could not have furnished the material upon the credit of the particular building in which it was placed, for the reason that they had no knowledge of any such building. The court charged: “ If you find that the machinery was not furnished upon the credit of the building, although used in it, that is an end of the case, and the verdict ought to be for the defendants.” Held, not to be error.</p> <p>In such case, it is not error to decline a request to charge the jury that “ it is unnecessary to prove affirmatively that the machinery was furnished on the credit of the building. It must be true in fact that the machinery was so furnished, and such fact will be presumed where the plaintiffs have complied with the provisions of the statute relating to the lien which they claim.”</p> <p>Per Curiam. — There was enough in the defendants’ case to rebut the presumption that plaintiffs had furnished the materials upon the credit of the building; and there was no evidence that the alleged contractors had authority as contractors to bind it.</p> <p>The case of Hoar v. Gill, 111 Pa. 492, distinguished.</p>