Russell v. Bell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
'Error to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county. This was a scire facias sur mechanic's lien, filed by Thomas M. Bell against Caleb Russell, for stonemason work on three three-storied brick houses of defendant in Pittsburgh.
Read the full summary
'Error to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county. This was a scire facias sur mechanic's lien, filed by Thomas M. Bell against Caleb Russell, for stonemason work on three three-storied brick houses of defendant in Pittsburgh. The material facts of the case were as follows:— In 1859, Caleb Russell being the owner of three lots in the city of Pittsburgh, entered into a written contract with William Stroud, who agreed to build three three-storied brick houses on these lots for the sum of $5850, and commenced work under this contract some time in the summer of 1859. Russell paid to him, and on his…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Strons, J.
Unless it was saved by the Act of April 16th 1845, the claim of the plaintiff below, as first filed, was fatally defective, and it was not cured by the proposed amendment. The Méchanics’ Lien Law of 1836 imperatively required that every claim filed must set forth “ the nature or kind of the work done, or the kind and amount of materials furnished, and the time when the materials were furnished or the work was done, as the case may be.” Compliance with this requisition is the condition upon which is made to depend the existence of a lien…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hoatz v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
3Cited by10 opinions
- McFarland v. SchultzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Chapman v. FaithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Citizens Bank v. LeskoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Brown v. Myers & Rathfon, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1892
- Arcady Farms Milling Co. v. SedlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.