Case ID: walker_4/html/0125-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALLEN VS. SMITH.
    Under the Act of Jane 28, 3879, there is no lien In favor of mechanics or workmen which will attach to a steam boiler temporalily hired to the land— owner.
    Error to Common Pleas of Warren County. No. 229, Januaiy Term, 1884.
    The facts agreed upon in the case stated were as follows :
    On the 23d day of May, 1883, a mechanic’s lien to No. 22,. March Term, 1883, was filed by Joseph Lorenz versus C. G. Glatzau and Win. Burdick and Parmeter, owners, and C. G.. Glatzau, contractor, on which lien a scire facias was issued to No. 29, September Tenn, 1883 ; judgment obtained and a writ of levari facias issued to No. 65, December Term, 1883, by virtue of which the leasehold and personal property therein described was sold to said Joseph Loi’enz on the 29th of October, 1883. The record, all the proceedings in said lien, scirefacias and levari facias, and the return thereof, are hereby made a part of this agreement as to fact.
    That prior to the filing of said lien the said defendant, Levi Smith, was the owner of the boiler in said lien and execution mentioned, and hired the same to said C. G. Glatzau for the purpose of putting down said well, at the rate of seventy-five cents a day ; and upon the completion of said well, and after paying for the use of it as agreed upon, the said Glatzau had; the privilege of buying said boiler at the price of three hundred and twenty-five ($325) dollars. That said boiler was delivered to said Glatzau, and by him taken to and placed; upon said lease for the purpose of drilling said well, under the agreement as aforesaid to pay for the use of the same, and that said Glatzau had paid no rent, and had not at the time •of said sale elected to purchase the same.
    That after the issuing of the scire facias in said lien, the defendant removed said boiler from said lease, whereupon a writ of seizure under the provisions of the Act of Assembly, was issued and directed to said E. A. Allen, Sheriff, and the bond in which this judgment was entered, was given for the forthcoming of said boiler when required. That after the Sheriff’s sale of said boiler as aforesaid, the said Sheriff demanded of said defendants a return and delivery to him of said boiler, in accordance with the terms and conditions of said bond, which said defendants refused for the reason as alleged by them, that the boiler was the property of the defendant, Levi Smith, and was not subject to said lien.
    That said bond was thereupon assigned to the plaintiff, Joseph Lorenz, for whose use the said judgment was entered thereon and this execution issued.
    The Court entered judgment in favor of defendants in the following opinion,
    Per Curiam :
    By Act 8th April, 1868, mechanics and laborers doing work on leaseholds in the County of Venango may have a lien upon the leasehold and the “personal property and fixtures on said lot or lease of ground,” as well as upon the lot or leasehold itself. This Act was extended to Warren Count}' March 18, 1869, P. L. 410. April 13, 1869, a supplement to the Act of April 8, 1868, was passed, in which the true intent and meaning of the Act of 1868 is declared to be that the lien shall extend only to the interest of the tenants or owner in such machinery and material, “and not to the property of the persons having no interest in such leasehold or benefit from the work done thereon.”
    Does the Act of 1879, P. L. 182, give to the person performing labor, &c., a lien on the property of third persons-having no interest in the leasehold or benefit from the -work done? We think the words of the Act are not expressive of such a purpose, and in the absence of clear and plain words indicative of such a purpose we think we ought to construe the Act of 1879 as in pari materia with other legislation relating to the lien of meehanics, material, men and laborers.
    We are of opinion that the title to the boiler mentioned in the case stated, notwithstanding the mechanic’s lien and sale still remained in the defendant, Levi Smith. The execution is set aside, the lien of the judgment is stricken off, and judgment is now entered for the defendants on the case stated.
    The parties having agreed that the judgment, if in favor of defendants, shall be “upon such terms as shall be just,” and it appearing from the facts as recited that defendants refused to deliver the boiler in accordance with the terms and conditions of the bond given to the Sheriff, we are of the opinion that that official was justified in entering judgment on the bond and issuing execution, and it is directed that the judgment in favor of defendants shall be entered upon the terms that defendants shall pay the cost of this proceeding.
    Allen then took a writ of error complaining of the judgment.
    S. T. Neill, Esq., for plaintiff in error,
    argued that the Act of June 28th, 1879, P. Laws 182, gave a lien regardless of the ownership, against the thing. It should be liberally construed, Dame’s Appeal, 62 Pa. 417. Real estate is bound by •a mechanic’s lien, in the hands of a tenant; Savory vs. Jones 2, Rawle, 343; Holdship vs. Abercrombie, 9 Watts 52; Bickle vs, James, 7 Watts 9; O’Connor vs. Warren, 4 W. & S. 223. Strangers’ goods on premises are subject to landlord’s lien for rent: Ward vs. Kleber, 88 Pa. 93; Price vs. McCallister, 3 Grant 248.
    Charles H. Noyes, Esq., contra,
    cited Acts April 8, 1868, P. Laws 752; April 13, 1869, P. Laws 887, and June 28, 1879, 182.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on June 9th, 1884, in the following opinion y ,

Per Curiam :

The facts do not bring the case within the operation of the statute involved. The Act of June 28, 1879, P. Laws 182, declares the intent and meaning of the special Act of April 8, 1868, P. Laws 751. The clear intent of the later law is to restrict the lien to the property which has received the benefit of the labor. Judgment was correctly entered in favor of the defendant on the case stated.

Judgment affirmed.