Wademan v. Thorp
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL by Thomas Cochran, a judgment creditor of George Thorp, from the decree of the court of common pleas of Perry county, appropriating the proceeds of the sale of his real estate. The only question argued in this court, was whether burr millstones are the subject of mechanic’s lien. cited Morgan v. Arthurs & Co., 3 Watts 140.
1Per curiam
There is little doubt from the face of the record, that the decree passed by consent; but as there is nothing in the exceptions, nothing would be gained by quashing the appeal. Millstones are undoubtedly parcel of the building; and there is neither reason nor any peculiar provision in the statutes to forbid them to be the subject of a mechanic’s lien like any other part of the machinery. The form of the claim filed, too, being adequate to the purpose of notice, is specific enough. The judgment in competition with it, however, is prior in date, and would take precedence if it were a lien; but…
2Cited by8 opinions
- White v. ChaffinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
- Parrish & Hazard's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Heidegger v. Atlantic Milling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- Wheeler v. Pierce, Kelley & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Carter v. TruemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.