Shannon v. Broadbent
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 170 and 171, July T., 1893, by defendants, Owen L. Broadbent and wife, owners, and John I. McDuffee, contractor; and by John I. McDuffee, owner and contractor, and Jennie Keaggy, intervening owner, from judgments of C. P. No. 4, Phila.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 170 and 171, July T., 1893, by defendants, Owen L. Broadbent and wife, owners, and John I. McDuffee, contractor; and by John I. McDuffee, owner and contractor, and Jennie Keaggy, intervening owner, from judgments of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1891, Nos. 1101, 1102, M. L. D., for want of sufficient affidavits of defence, in favor of J. Jacob Shannon and William F. Brown, trading as J. Jacob Shannon & Co. Rules for judgment for want of sufficient affidavits of defence in sci. fas. sur apportioned mechanics’ claims. A bill of particulars was annexed to each claim showing…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
The affidavit of defence alleges that the materials, for which the lien in this case was filed, were not furnished within six months before the lien was filed and were furnished more than six months before that time.
Although the claim is upon an apportioned lien, this averment takes away the prima facies of the claim and makes it necessary to know the whole of the facts as to the time and circumstances of delivery before the question of ultimate liability can be properly determined. It is contended by the appellees *199that, being an apportioned lien, it is good…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson v. ForderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jackson v. Pennsylvania RailroadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1939
- City of Philadelphia v. BeattySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899