Porter Screen Mfg. Co. v. Hunter

Citations

• 69 Pa. Super. 22
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 316

Syllabus

<p>Mechanic’s lien — Window and door screens — Intention—Constitutional law — Extension of class of subjects — Act of June I, 1901, P. L. IS1 — Building specifications — Expert opinion — Evidence.</p> <p>A mechanic’s lien may be filed for work done and materials furnished in installing- wire window and door screens in an apartment-house, if it appears that such installation was at the request of the owner, and that it was the intention of the owner to make the screens a part of the building, and that they became in fact a part of the building.</p> <p>The usé of such screens as a protection, is within the meaning of the words of the Act of June 4,1901, P. L. 431, which relate to materials furnished in “completing, fitting up or equipping” a structure.</p> <p>The provision of the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, as applicable to door and window screens, is not an extension of the mechanic’s lien law, to a class of subjects not included within that law, when the present Constitution went into effect.</p> <p>On the trial of a scire facias on a mechanic’s -lien for door and window screens, where the testimony fully describes the manner of their use and attachment to the building, the opinion of expert witnesses is not necessary to assist the jury in determining whether 'they were or not a constituent part of the building.</p> <p>In such a case the building specifications are properly rejected as irrelevant, where it appears that the materialman dealt directly with the owner, who could enlarge or alter the plans as he saw fit.</p>