Carey v. Seifert
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 131, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 3,978, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Edward Carey v. Thekla Seifert. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien. Before Ralston, J. The court charged in part as follows: One of the first questions that you will have to determine in this case is whether there was any contract between these parties.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 131, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 3,978, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Edward Carey v. Thekla Seifert. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien. Before Ralston, J. The court charged in part as follows: One of the first questions that you will have to determine in this case is whether there was any contract between these parties. The plaintiff testified that the defendant, Mrs. Seifert, had asked him to put up a building for her, but that no price was agreed upon, no specifications prepared and that the whole matter was…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The first proposition presented by the appellant is that *580the plaintiff cannot recover because it does not appear from the evidence presented by the latter at the trial that a contract existed between the plaintiff and defendant under which the labor was performed and the material furnished for which the lien was filed and that on such a state of facts a right of lien does not exist under the Act of June 4,1901, P. L. 431. This position is taken in view of the testimony of the plaintiff who, to an inquiry by the court whether he had any agreement or contract for the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hartman v. MeighanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Snedaker v. TorpeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909