Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1893-10-06
The Mechanics Lien Act Unconstitu-
tionaI.

Property owners, builders, contractors
and mechanics are all interested in the de-
cision of Judge Hempbill, of Chester coun-
ty, which declares that the Mechanics
Lien law of June s, 1891, is not legislation
but usurpation, trespasses upon the inner
ent and indefeasible rights Of ofproperty, vi
olates the fundamental principles of both
contracts and agency, eliminating from
the one mutuality Of assent and from the
other the authorization of the principal,
and is therefore unconstitutional and void.
The act of 1891 declares, first, that no
contract shall prevent the filing of a me-
chanic's lien for work done or materials
furnished unlessl the sub-contracter shall
consent to the contract in writing, and that
without such written contract all con-
tracts which declare that no lien shall be
filed shall be invalid as against the right
of the sub contractor to file the same.
Secondly, the act declares that all persons
contracting with the owner shall be con-
sidered the agents Of the owner in order
ing work and materials for tho erection Of
q building. Under this act David McMas-
ters, sub contractor, filed lien against
the West Chester Normal School. The
school as corporation had dealt directly
with Davis Pennock, who contracted to
erect the building. With him a written
greement had been made. in which Pen
mock, for himself and his sub-contractors,
waived the right to file any lien or claim
against the property or owner, and agreed
to file no such lien. McMasters, who was
Pennock's sub-contractor, did not unite in
the agreement. McMasters attempted to
recover, claiming that Pennock was the
agent Of the school corporation and that
he he'd not, by written contract, parted
with his right to file lien in accordance
with tho terms Of the act of 1891.
Judge Hemphill summarizes the decis-
under the law of contracts. The first
point to be ascertained was whether the
act of 1891 affected the original contract or
remedy provided. The judge points ont
that the act gives no new remedy, for the
contractor had the right of lien before its
passage, and that it affects solely the con-
tract taking effect and becoming opera
tive at the inception Of the contract, while
the remedy provided by law for the en-
forcement Of the contract becomes opera
tive only when the contract has been bro
ken. Continuing the Judge holds that the
section Of the act which makes the origi-
nal contractor the agent Of the owner Gre
ates an involuntary agency, not when the
contract is broken, but when made. As
in tho case decid ed the contract was made
subsequent to the law, and the latter
would therefore become part of the former,
Judge Hemphill is of opinion the act oil
1891 does not impair the obligation Of con-
tracts, but decides it to be unconstitutional
on other grounds. These grounds are that
the act attempts TO interfere with the own.
er's right OF contract and creates without
his consent an agency between him and
the sub-contractor. He therefore holds
that the Legislature attempts to do greal
injustice to the owner and exercise pow
er never conferred upon 1t, but, on thu
other hand, expressly reserved to the indi
vidual citizen by the declaration of right
OF the State Constitution.
Practically the act would put the owne
at the the mercy of the first sub contrac
tor, since there might easily be sub-con
tractors Of whom the owners could have n,
knowledge A contractor could not con
tract for the erection OF building in salts
faction of debt without running the ris
Of being worse off than he was before sine
the debtor could by concealing the sub
contract, appear to satisfy the debt an
subsequently liens could be filed whic
would absorb the value of the building.
The objections to the act stated b
Judge Hemphill are 80 serious that the
will at once be apparent to every reader {
the decision. The wonder might exii
that these objections were not seen whe
the Legislature and press were discussin
the suhject IT the time the act was passe,
were IL not for the fact that Legislator,
are constantly engaged in the attempt |
make unconstitutional laws at the instig
ton Of a class which does not see vei
clearly the rights of other classes.--P Phil
delphia Inquirer.