#### Allen’s Appeal.

1. The act of April 9th, 1872 (wages of mechanics, etc.), does not extend to wages of persons employed about a hotel.

2. A hotel was not meant to be included within the words “ *other business*” in the act.

3. The words *“other business"*refer to some business, *ejusdem generis,*as “works, mines, manufactory,” where “clerks,” etc., are employed.

4. Sullivan’s Appeal, 27 P. F. Smith, 107, followed.

*303November 13th, 1875.

Before Agnew, O. J., Sharswood, Williams, Mercur, Gordon, Paxson, and Woodward, JJ.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of *Butler*County, of October and November Term, 1875, No. 42.

In the distribution of the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale of the personal property of Valentine Fehl.

Robert Allen, on the 17th of March,, 1870, recovered a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, against Valentine Fehl. A testatum fieri facias to Allegheny County was issued on this judgment; Fehl was then keeping tavern at the American Hotel in Pittsburgh. The sheriff of Allegheny sold his personal property in the tavern on the 20th of February, 1874, and paid into the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, $1717.45 of the proceeds of sale after deducting costs.

The matter, was referred to T. C. Campbell, Esq., to report distribution.

Amongst others, a number of claims were presented for wages for services of the claimant's as clerk, house servants, etc., performed about the hotel; they amounted in the whole to $662, and the claimants asked to be paid from the proceeds of the sale in preference to the execution creditor, by virtue of the act of April 9th, 1872, sect. 1, Pamph. L., 47; 2 Br. Purd., 1464, pi. 1. The section provides that all moneys “ due for labor and services rendered by any miner, mechanic, laborer, or clerk, from any person or persons, or, chartered company employing clerks, miners, mechanics, or laborers, either as owners ... of any works, mines, manufactory, or other business where clerks, miners, or mechanics are employed . . . for any period not exceeding six months, immediately preceding the sale and transfer of such "works, mines, manufactories, or business, or other property connected therewith in carrying on said business, by execution or otherwise . . . shall be a lien upon said mine, manufactory, business, or other property, . . . and shall be preferred and first paid out of the proceeds of the sale of such mine, manufactory, business, or other property aforesaid, . . . provided that the claim of such miner, mechanic, laborer, or clerk thus preferred shall not exceed $200.”

The auditor was of the opinion that the business of hotel-keeping was within the act, and awarded to the claimants the amounts of their claims.

The execution creditor filed exceptions to the report.

The Court, McGüeein, P. J., overruled the exceptions and confirmed the report.

The execution creditor appealed to the Supreme Court, and assigned the confirmation of the report for error.

*304
      *W. D. Brandon*and *JE. M. Bredin,*for appellants.

There was no paper-book furnished by appellees.

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, November 24th, 1875.

Per Curiam:

This case is governed by the decision in Sullivan’s Appeal, to be reported in 27 P. F. Smith’s Reports, p. 107. It was there held that a hotel does not fall within the term of the act of 9th April, 1872 (2 Purdon, 1464, pl. 1), giving a preferred lien for wages or services. The words of the act are “ any works, mines, manufactory, or other business where clerks, miners, or mechanics are employedand the lien is given for the “ labor and services rendered by any miner, mechanic, laborer, or clerk.” A hotel is plainly not within the descriptive words, and was not meant to be included within the general words “ or other business.” These words refer to some business, *éjusdem generis,*as “ works, mines, manufactory ” where “ clerks, miners, mechanics, and laborers ” are employed.

Decree of distribution reversed, and the record ordered to be remitted"to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, in order that distribution may be made according to this opinion, and costs ordered to be paid by the appellees.