Barker v. Maxwell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Beaver county. Robert Maxwell and Thomas Morgan against Richard B. Barker. Scire facias sur mechanics’ lien. On the 6th of June 1S36, Thomas Morgan and Richard B. Barker entered into a written agreement, by which the former was to do certain mason-work for the latter át the price stipulated. After the agreement was executed, the plaintiffs in this suit, by an endorsement upon the said agreement, entered into partnership to do the work.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Beaver county. Robert Maxwell and Thomas Morgan against Richard B. Barker. Scire facias sur mechanics’ lien. On the 6th of June 1S36, Thomas Morgan and Richard B. Barker entered into a written agreement, by which the former was to do certain mason-work for the latter át the price stipulated. After the agreement was executed, the plaintiffs in this suit, by an endorsement upon the said agreement, entered into partnership to do the work. The proof was that the defendant refused to have any thing to do with Maxwell. After the work was completed Maxwell and Morgan…
1Per curiam
There is at least one objection to this claim, which is fatal to it. Maxwell had no power, by his own act, to constitute himself the defendant’s creditor; nor does the statute legitimate his claim as such. He came into the business under the ■contractor, who was also the architect or builder; and what did the statute authorise him to do in that predicament? Simply to file his claim against the property, setting forth the name of the owner of the building; and also the name of the architect or builder, as such, with whom he contracted. On that head the statute is distinct and 'positive.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Willamette Mills Co. v. SheaOregon Supreme Court · 1893
- McGrew v. McCartyIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Carney v. La Crosse & Milwaukee RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Purinton v. Hull of a New ShipU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1855