Jobsen v. Boden
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. Scire facias upon a mechanic’s claim. The facts were: J obsen was employed by McAllister to build a mill at a certain price. Jobsen hired Boden by the day, to work as a carpenter and mill-wright; for the agreed price, Boden filed the claim now in question. On a point reserved, the court gave judgment for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
As early as the year 1819, it was decided by the District Court of Philadelphia, that a journeyman mechanic employed in working on a building, under the original contractor or master-mason, could not file a lien against the erection, under the act of 1806, notwithstanding the general or comprehensive words of the statute, which, taken literally, would seem to include every grade and class of workmen, from the chief builder down to the least important day-labourer: Cobb v. Traquair, 1 Frank. Jour. 97. The doctrine was repeated by Judge Randall, then of the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hoatz v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Savoy & Salter v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830
- Haley v. ProsserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Waters v. WolfSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894