White v. Miller
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was a claim under the Mechanics’ Lien law, by John White, John Owen, and John Ross, partners, doing business under the firm of White, Owen, & Ross v. William L. Miller, owner, and James McCracken, contractor. July 20th, 1849, it was agreed between the parties to the proceeding, that the case be stated for the opinion of the Court in the nature of a special verdict.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was a claim under the Mechanics’ Lien law, by John White, John Owen, and John Ross, partners, doing business under the firm of White, Owen, & Ross v. William L. Miller, owner, and James McCracken, contractor. July 20th, 1849, it was agreed between the parties to the proceeding, that the case be stated for the opinion of the Court in the nature of a special verdict. White, Owen, & Ross, the plaintiffs, furnished lumber, &c., to James McCracken, the contractor, to be used in the erection of the house,of Wm. L. Miller, against which the lien…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered, by
Hibson, C. J.
As soon as owners of lots ceased to be their own builders, they put it in the power of the persons employed by them to occasion losses to mechanics and material-men which they ought not to bear; and it was to remedy this mischief that the *54legislature established the principle that materials and labour are to be considered as having been furnished on the credit of the building, and not of the contractor. The principle is not only a just but a convenient one. Whether the builder be the agent of the owner or an independent contractor, his…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Linden Steel Co. v. Rough Run Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Quartaroli v. City of SonomaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912