Schenck v. Uber
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia: Of January Term 1874, No. 265. This was a scire facias, issued June 15th 1872, by Peter H. Uber and Milton Tees, trading as Uber & Tees, against Joseph H. Schenck, owner, &c., and W. B. Levan and George H. Ball, contractors, on a mechanics’ lien, entered March 14th 1872. The claim was for $450, against a building and lot, on the northeast corner of Sixth and Arch streets, in the city of Philadelphia, “ being a debt…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia: Of January Term 1874, No. 265. This was a scire facias, issued June 15th 1872, by Peter H. Uber and Milton Tees, trading as Uber & Tees, against Joseph H. Schenck, owner, &c., and W. B. Levan and George H. Ball, contractors, on a mechanics’ lien, entered March 14th 1872. The claim was for $450, against a building and lot, on the northeast corner of Sixth and Arch streets, in the city of Philadelphia, “ being a debt contracted for mill-work, viz.: cage for elevator, furnished at the request of the said W. Barnet Levan and George H. Ball, by…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Agnew
The precise question in this case must be distinguished from others seemingly akin to it. It is not whether the engine, machinery and cage constituting a hoisting machine or elevator are realty. Certainly they are when put in by the owner as a part of his building. Such machines have become essential to the convenient use of large stores, factories, hotels and the like; and constituting a part of the construction of the building, pass with it. The question is not whether a lien may be created by the owner, or a principal contractor for the erection of the building. Undoubtedly, as for any…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Owen v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Kountz Bros. v. Consolidated Ice Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Moser v. Loeper, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1926