Pierce v. Marple
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 31, July T., 1891, by defendants, Kate Marple et al., from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1890, No. 11, on verdict for plaintiffs, James Pierce et al. Sci. fa. sur mechanics’ lien. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 31, July T., 1891, by defendants, Kate Marple et al., from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., March T., 1890, No. 11, on verdict for plaintiffs, James Pierce et al. Sci. fa. sur mechanics’ lien. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. On the trial before We and, J., plaintiff being on the stand, “ counsel for defendant states that they want to prove by this witness that, as he has testified, a verbal contract was made, and to ask whether he did not enter into a contract to build this house, to be paid for in lime by the defendant, to be followed up by showing that…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chibe Justice Paxson,
This was a scire facias sur mechanics’ lien. The claim was for the carpenter work, etc., of a frame house which had been constructed upon defendants’ land. The defendants did not deny that the work was done, but they contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to file this lien, and to have judgment upon the scire facias, for the reason that they had agreed to take their pay in lime. It is manifest the plaintiffs were entitled to have the benefit of the lien, and the judgment upon the scire facias, whether they were to be paid in lime or in dollars. The…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hoffman v. Bloomsburg & Sullivan R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Shea v. WellsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Schulte v. BubenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Bernard v. FisherIdaho Supreme Court · 1918
- Richter v. LindenMontana Supreme Court · 1912