The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1878-07-05

Distribution of proceeds of Sheriff's sale Of
personal property of Defendants.
The facts stated in the affidavit of Mary
E. Saunders, admitted in the case stated to
be true in substance, are to the effect that
VIM. Saunders Jr., one of the claimants, al
though minor, and living at home, his
father being one of the defendants,
yet that he had been SO fare mancipated from
the control of his parents as to entitle him
to recover for himself wages earned by him
-McCoskey VS.. Cyphert Casey 22O, Nc.
Ginnis VS.. The Steamboat Grand Trunk 9
Pitts. 326.
He is entitled to payment Of his claim a:
il he were of age. His right to receive pay.
ment out of the proceeds of sale depends as
does that of all the other claima upon the
sufisency ofnotice to theSheriff in their case
respectively.
The notices of Samuel Townsend and r
II. Ringler are in strict accordance with the
| requirements of the wages Act of 8 April
1872 and would be safe examples to be fol-
lowed in all cases.
The notice of s. B. Anderson is full and
complete.
The claims and notices of VIM. G. Girton,
Calvin L. Girton and Alfred F. Girton by a
liberal construction of the statute may be
held to be sufficient 1t is better practice
however to entitle the suit in which the
lien is claimed and to state in the notice the
| number of the Fl. Fa. upon which the levy
is madeupon which the lien is claimed.
The claim OF J. Elwood Heaco ok as stat.
ed in the notice is not within the protection
of the statute. 1t does not appear that the
claimant was employed at the works of the
| defendant-claim not allowed.
Notices by "a different claimants whose
claims in the aggregate amounted to s644. IA
we're contained in one paper and handed to
the Sheriff. 1t would be we'll for all parties
interested in claims for wages to cause to be
made out aud presented to the Sheriff with
proper notices his own claim separate from
that Of other claimants. There is no reason
why the claim of one laborer or mechanic
should be complicated with that of another.
By the separate plan there will be less danger
of rejection of claim by reason of omissions
or insufficiency of notice.
The "a claims are not as specific as they
might bet states that the following nam
ed laborers and mechanics, employed by the
Bloomsbury Lumber Company as carpenters
or mechanics working in the shop and about
the mill of said Company whose property
was levied upon by virtue of the Fl. ia. des-
iguated BY the number, and it claims lien
upon said property for labor performed by
the day within the six months preceding.
At the close it is stated that the total
amount claimed by these laborers for car.
peuter work &C., "amounts to the sum stated.
The notices would have been free from all
question and difficulty if the terms, laborer,
carpenter and mechanic had specifically ap-
piled to each claimant according to the fact,
and the number Of days work claimed by
each,or the price per day had been inserted.
While hold the notices by liberal con-
struction of the statute to be sufficient can.
not commend them as sp ecimens of clear
ness in statement.
In the commencement of the notice the
claimants are styled "laborers and mechan-
les" employed "as carpenters or mechanics
and at the close the statement AYERS that
the amount claimed by the above mentioned
laborers for carpenter work amounts to the
sum named.
Taking the whole statement together
the evident meaning is that labor was
formed by mechanics at the mandatory
of the defendants, yet in some parts of the
writing they are called laborers, in other
parts carpenters, and in one portion the
words carpenters or mechanics are used as
meaning the same thing. The labor per-
formed as stated, by carpenters or other me-
chanics, was performed in the shop or manu- :
factory of the defendants.
The question of notice to the sheriff by
claimants under the wages act has been un-
der consideration by the courts in several
instances in several of these the notices
have been held insufficient to entitle the
claimant to preference.
In Mcmillan vs.. Bank, Weekly Notes
So, it was held by the Supreme Court that
notice containing list of names and an
amount opposite each with verbal notice to
the sheriff that the parties named claimed
lien was not in compliance with the law.
The notice must be wholly in writing-it
must refer to the property levied upon, and
it must claim lien.
In Kerdig VS.. Atkinson "a Legal Intelli-
gencer 1876, by Judge Pershing, and in Gra-
ham VS.. s.McLean& BennerM MachineCo. Legal
Intelligencer Toby Judge Butler, it was held
that notice containing nothing more than
mere statement that the defendant was debt
or to the claimant in an amount named was
not q sufficient notice.
The same was held by this Court in VIM.
Peifer's estate 6 Luzerne Leg Reg. 1O1. We
there held that the statute requires that the
notice should contain every essential to val
id claim with reasonable certainty. 1t should
contain notice that the party claims lien
on the property seized by the officer, and the
particulars of service as to days work or
work by the month or other contract, and the
amount ella imed.
In Re w. III. Bennett Luzerne Leg.
Reg. it was held by Judge Handley that
notice in the words of the statute is sufficient
without full detail. He is of opinion that
the notice which seems to be required by the
ruling in PETERS case is too specific for prac-
tice. Without pausing to discuss that ques-
ton now it is enough to say that the notice
in the case under consideration is more full
and specific than that in either of the cases
above cited. In none of them was the prop
erty referred to, nor the fact that lien was
claimed stated. While here the property
upon which the lien is claimed is defined by
reference TO the fl. ia. and levy. The claim
of lien is distinctly stated-the work is sta.
ted to have bsen performed by the day and
i the amount is set down,