Case Name: Lightfoot versus Krug et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1860
Citations: 35 Pa. 348
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lightfoot versus Krug et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
Lightfoot versus Krug et al.
A kitchen is an -erection which will authorize the filing of a mechanics’ lien, though it may bind the main building to which the kitchen is attached.
Nelson v. Campbell, 4 Casey 156, affirmed.
Error to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county.
This was a scire facias by Krug & Kohlman against Jacob Light-foot, on a mechanic’s claim for $53.06, which was filed against a “one-storied brick kitchen, or back building,” erected on the easterly half of lot No. 40, in Bell, Edwards & Breed’s plan of lots in the borough' of Birmingham, “being twelve by fourteen feet square, and one story high.”
The defendant filed the following affidavit of defence:—
“ Before me, personally came John Lightfoot, agent for Jacob Lightfoot, who for defence saith, that the alleged building, against which the mechanic’s lien is filed, is not such a building as the act contemplated a lien would lie against; it being the mere addition to the main building of a kitchen; such main building being a two-storied brick house.
“John Lightroot.”
On motion of the plaintiffs’ counsel, the court below gave judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence,' which was here assigned for error.
F. H. Collier, for the plaintiff in error,
cited Landis’s Appeal, 10 Barr 379; Miller v. Oliver, 8 Watts 514.
R. B. Carnahan, for the defendant in error,
cited and relied npon.the case of Nelson v. Campbell, 4 Casey 156.
This ease was argued at Pittsburgh, and decided at Philadelphia on the 3d January 1860. '

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Thompson, J.
The new erection was a kitchen or back building. Was this subject .to a lien of the mechanic? The court below held that it was. In this they were right. It is clearly within the principle, of Nelson v. Campbell, 4 Casey 156, and is ruled by it.
Judgment affirmed.