Union Savings & Building Ass'n v. Vahle

Citations

• 235 Pa. 435
• 84 A. 407
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 566

Syllabus

<p>Mechanics’ lien — Erection and construction — Repairs.</p> <p>1. A mechanics’ lien is not invalidated by the fact that it includes a claim both for repairs and for erection and construction where it appears as a fact that the work done by the claimant under his contract was in substance that of new construction after a fire, even though a small part of the work,, if standing by itself, would properly have been classed as repairs.</p> <p>Mechanics’ lien — Several structures — Single plant — Averment of claim.</p> <p>2. Where a mechanics’ lien is filed against several structures which were all intended to form a single plant, it is better practice to aver clearly, in the claim that the buildings were intended to form one plant, and that in fact they do constitute such a plant; but there is nothing in the mechanics'’ lien1 law which makes such an averment in the claim essential, or which requires the courts to hold that its omission invalidated the claim.</p>