Kees v. Kerney
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appear from Baltimore county court. The appellant sued out a writ of scire Jxtcias under the mechanics’ lien law of 1838, ch. 205, to enforce his claim for work and labor done and performed upon and about the building, described in the writ, of which the appellee was the owner or reputed owner. The claim filed before the writ issued is not in the record. The sheriff made return to the writ, “made known,” “copy served,” and property “advertised.”
Read the full summary
Appear from Baltimore county court. The appellant sued out a writ of scire Jxtcias under the mechanics’ lien law of 1838, ch. 205, to enforce his claim for work and labor done and performed upon and about the building, described in the writ, of which the appellee was the owner or reputed owner. The claim filed before the writ issued is not in the record. The sheriff made return to the writ, “made known,” “copy served,” and property “advertised.” The appellee appeared and plead non assumpsit. To this plea the appellant filed a special demurrer that it was immaterial and inconclusive, and ho…
1Opinion of the CourtTuck, J.
This is a proceeding under the mechanics’ lien laws, in force in the city of Baltimore. The claim filed before the attachment was issued is not in the record. Consequently we cannot discover whether the alleged debt was contracted by the owner with the plaintiff, or was for work and labor or materials furnished by some person employed, not by the owner of the property, but by the builder. In the first case the claim would show a contract or promise, express or implied, on the part of the defendant, to which non assumpsit would be a proper plea. In the latter case the law would not raise an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Carson v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1847
3Cited by1 opinion
- Richards v. NaudainSuperior Court of Delaware · 1912