Case Name: Bayer versus Reeside
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1850-10-28
Citations: 14 Pa. 167
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bayer versus Reeside.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
Bayer versus Reeside.
A claim, stating the amount, for stone, mason-work, &e., and materials, to wit, stone, lime, sand, &e., done and furnished within the six months last past, to wit, between the 1st June, 1848, and 1st April, 1849, is sufficiently definite as to time
Error, to tbe District Court of Allegheny county.
This was the case of a scire facias by Reeside vs. Bayer, on a mechanic’s lien filed by Reeside vs. Bayer, owner and contractor, &c., for $147.10. Reeside, stone-mason, filed his claim for the payment of $147.10 against a certain two-story brick house, (describing its situation,) and lot of ground, &c., to wit, stone, mason-work, &c., and materials, to wit, stone, lime, sand, &c., done and furnished by the said Alexander H. Reeside, within the six months last past, to wit, between the 1st June, 1848, and 1st April, 1849, for and about the erection and construction of said building and appurtenances, of which the said Dr. C. Bayer was and is the owner, or reputed owner; and at his instance and request, he being the contractor, architect, and builder thereof, &c., and the said claimant hereto annexes a bill of particulars of the amount of his said debt, &c.:
Dr. C. Bayer to Alexander H. Reeside, Dr.
To 91-|- feet cut stone hearth, at 35 cents per foot..........$ 81.90
“ 302 feet Ashler drawn cut stone, at 37-|- cents per foot 113.25 &c., &c., &c.
including 90 feet curbstone, at 25 cents per foot, 22.50. Credit was allowed for $96.42; leaving a balance of $147.10.
The above work done and materials furnished, between June, 1848, and April 1st, 1849.
No date was stated in the account. A demurrer was filed on the part of defendant. Judgment on the demurrer against defendant, quod respondeat ouster.
It was objected that the lien does not set forth the time at which the several materials were furnished, or the time said work was done. 2d. That said claim includes material not subject to lien. The latter objection referred to the claim for curbstone.
The case was submitted on the printed arguments.
Sewell was for plaintiff in error.
Stewart and Marshall were for defendant.
— In their argument, it was remarked: With regard to the exception to the charge of $22.50 for curbstone, this point was not made below, and whether curbstone, in the erection of a building, is not necessary to the building, is an open question. It will be observed that the claimant gives a credit in his claim for $96.42; the defendant below not having made appropriation at the time of payment, the mechanic has the right to do so. On the trial of this cause below, the defendant made no attempt to deny that the work was performed, and that the mechanic faithfully earned his claim, and the jury, by their verdict, have disposed of all the technical objections to the claim.
October 28th,

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Burnside, J.
— The plaintiff complains that the lien filed does not set forth the time at which the several materials wore furnished, or the time the said work was done. The act of the 18th June, 1886, section 12, directs that the claim should set forth the time when the materials were furnished or the work was done, as the case may be. I think, in this ease, there was a substantial compliance with the act. The defendant in error was a stone-mason, and his claim is filed for stone-mason work. The building is well described. His claim is for the work, and for the stone, lime, and sand, done and found, within six months past, viz., between the 1st June, 1848, and the 1st April, 1849. The bill is given, but it has no other date. The lien is filed for a specific sum, and it specifies the particular work done. It was for this work done and materials found, six months before the claim filed. The case of Shaw v. Barnes, 5 Barr 20, is a direct authority to support this judgment. There the claim was for plastering within six months before the claim filed. This court there said, that these claims are frequently filed by mechanics unaccustomed to legal forms. We allow a claim which is defective in form to be stricken off, on motion and rule, from the record; but after a trial on the merits, technical objections are disregarded by this court.
Judgment affirmed.