The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1876-10-27
IMPORTANT OPINION.

In The matter Of Tie distribuiioa Of proceeds If
safe OF personal pmPerNV William Rig,r
By Me Sheriff, The JoHowin9 opinion Uos
rendered by HiNiam Eiwei, r. j., October
20h, 1876. 3
The wages Act of . April 1872 gives no
lien In favor of Clerks, Miners, Mechanics
or laborers, upon any property not used at
or in connection with the mine or manuiac
tory or other like business where the claim
ant of the lien is employed.
In considering cases under the Act it is
important to consider whether the business
in which he owner or lessee of the property
is engaged is such as entities his employees
TO licn--The words OF the statute used in
defining the business are, "works, mines.
manuiactory or other business where clerks,
miners, or mechanics are emploved,' other
kinds of business, such as keeping hotel
are not included by these words. Allen ,s
Fehl, 33 Leg Int. 3j6 Sulivau's Appeal,
p p. F. Smith loS.
1t is also important to ascertain whether
the property about to be sold upon an exc.
cution or otherwise was in aud about the
mine, mandatory &c, or used in carrying
on the business thereat or in connection
Herewith.
And lastly whether the claimant has
rendered service emitting him to a lien, and
has given the notice of his claim as required
by the second section OF the Act.
In this case the auditor has found that
VIM. Peiiler the execution debtor was en-
gagged in mining and in building houses
at the mines he was also engaged in the
business of hotel keeping wholly independ-
ent from his mining business. The fund for
distribution was raised hy the sale of the
personal property in and about the hotel.
The auditor therefore rightly decided, that
the execution creditor was entitled TO the
proceeds of the sale and the persons employ
ed at the mines had no lien upon the prop
erty or claim upon the fund.
The notices to the Sheriff were so defec-
tive that the money could not have been
legally awarded to the claimants il they had
lien.
The act requires that the notice of the
claim shall be in writing and shall be given
to the officer executing the writ before sale.
The writing should contain ecery element
which goes to make up claim under the
statute. 1t ought to state the business in
which the employee was engaged-tbe kind
of service rendered by the claimant, wheth-
er as clerk, miner, mechanic or laborer-the
fact that a lien is claimed upon the property
seized by the officer and the particulars OF
the service as to days work, or work by the
month or other contract, and the amount
claimed.
The courts will not be hypercritical in
scanning this species of claim, but they can.
not disregard the requirements of the statute
As that. requires the notice to be in writing
no part of it can be supplemented by parole
evidence, but the writing itself must contain
every essential to valid claim, with reason.
able certainty.
A notice which merely gives the name o.
the claimant, and a sum opposite, without
referring to the property and claiming {
lien thereon, is invalid and worthl,ss.-
McMillen VS.. Bank, Weekly Notes SO.
For the reasons given by the auditor ant
for the further reason that the notices to tht
Sheriff are not such as the statute requires
the Auditors Report must be confirmed
Exceptions overruled and report confirmed