Case ID: ind_14/html/0538-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Perkins, J. Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ainsworth v. Atkinson and Others.
    A suit to enforce a lien upon real estate, is in the nature of a suit to foreclose a mortgage, and is not embraced by § 10, 2 R. S. p. 451, conferring civil jurisdiction upon justices of the peace.
    In a suit to enforce a mechanic's lien, an answer alleging that the property is now owned by a third person, but not denying the ownership of the defendant at the time the lien attached, is bad.
    
      Wednesday, June 13.
    APPEAL from the Wayne Court of Common Pleas.
   Perkins, J.

Suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien upon real estate. The amount for which a lien was claimed was less than fifty dollars. It was claimed that, therefore, the Common Pleas had not jurisdiction; that the suit should have been brought before a justice of the peace.

J. Perry, for the appellant.

W. A. Bielde, for the appellees.

But a suit to enforce a lien upon real estate is in the nature of a suit to foreclose a mortgage, a proceeding in chancery under the former practice, and is not embraced by the section of the code (2 R. S. p. 451, § 10,) conferring civil jurisdiction upon justices. Perk. Pr., p. 639.

The defendant answered, that the property on which the lien was sought to be enforced was then owned by a third person, but did not deny the ownership of the defendant at the time the lien attached.

This answer was no defense.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with 10 per cent, damages and costs.