Hern & Co. v. Hopkins
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. This case depended on the act securing to mechanics and others, payment for their labour and materials, in erecting houses, &c., passed the 17th of March, 1806. Purd. Dig. 545. 4 Sm. Laws, 300. The plaintiffs claimed a lien, under this law, in preference to a judgment creditor. The following were the material facts of the case.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This case depended on the act securing to mechanics and others, payment for their labour and materials, in erecting houses, &c., passed the 17th of March, 1806. Purd. Dig. 545. 4 Sm. Laws, 300. The plaintiffs claimed a lien, under this law, in preference to a judgment creditor. The following were the material facts of the case. William Robinson, jr. who was the original owner of the property on which the lien was claimed, commenced the building of a dwelling house, some time previous to the 5th of July, 1819; on which day he conveyed the premises, (the house being then finished,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tilghman, C. J.
By the act of assembly of the 17th of March, 1806, a mechanic has a lien, in preference to any other lien which originated subsequent to the commencement of the house, — but it is expressly provided, that the lien shall not continue longer than two yeai’s from the commencement of the building, unless an action for the recoveiy of the debt be instituted, or the claim filed, 1within six months after finishing the work, in the office of the protbonotary. In the present instance the plaintiffs did not file their claim within six months after…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- American Fire Insurance v. PringleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
- Williams v. TearneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pennock v. HooverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Werth v. WerthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828