Case Name: Richardson et al. v. Glockner
Court: Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1882-10-16
Citations: 3 Pennyp. 90
Docket Number: No. 68; No. 2
Parties: Richardson et al. v. Glockner.
Judges: Before Sharswood, C. J.; Mercur, Gordon, Trunkey, Sterrett, and Green, JJ. Paxson, J., absent.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reports (Pennypacker)
Volume: 3
Pages: 90–92

Head Matter:
October and November Term, 1882,
No. 68.
October 16, 1882.
Richardson et al. v. Glockner.
A mechanic’s lien will be sustained when the property is so described that those acquainted with the neighborhood are able to identify it.
Before Sharswood, C. J.; Mercur, Gordon, Trunkey, Sterrett, and Green, JJ. Paxson, J., absent.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Allegheny county.
Scire facias, sur mechanic’s lien, filed November 20, 1875, by Andrew Glockner against Hugh Richardson, owner, and Sarah Richardson, administratrix of Hugh Richardson, deceased, and Hillingass and Geiss, contractors.
The claim filed was as follows:
“Andrew Glockner files this claim for the payment of the sum of two hundred and twenty-eight and ffy dollars, against all that certain two-story brick stable or., building, situated in the Seventh ward, Allegheny city, in the county aforesaid, and described as follows : Having a front of 20x88 feet in depth, and is built upon a lot having a front of twenty feet on the eastern side of East street, and extends back eastwardly preserving the same width two hundred and fifty feet to Locust street, and the lot or piece of ground and curtilage appurtenant to said building ; the sum aforesaid being a debt contracted for work done, &c.”
Upon the trial in the Court below, the plaintiff produced a number of witnesses as to the location of the property.
Andrew Spath testified:
“I am acquainted with the Richardson property on East street; it fronts on East street and the back part on Locust ; they call it Buente street; the property fronts on the eastern side of East street running back to Locust; Locust street begins on East street and makes a kind of angle about two hundred and fifty feet from East street.
Q. How far is the Richardson property from the junction of Locust and East streets ?
A. The Hines property comes between and it is sixty feet in width on East street, I don’t know how much frontage the Richardson property has, but it is about five or six hundred feet; it runs the entire length of Locust street, (plan shown witness ;) it runs from the Hines property and fronts on East street. The stable is located close to the Hines property, and fronts on East street.
Cross-examination by Mr. Reed.
The street back they used to call Locust street, they now call Buente street; they called it by the latter name about two years ; Locust street runs the same way as East street, (plan shown witness.) There is no other street that they call Locust street, that I know of, further up East street; there is another Locust street on the other side of the hill above the Third ward school-house. That. doesn’t run into East street at any place an has nothing to do with that street that I know of ; this property is in the Twelfth ward ; the other Locust street would be, some in the Third ward and some in the Twelfth ward ; it runs from the Third ward school-house on the other side of the hill.”
Counsel for defendant asked the Court to charge inter alia:
“ That there is nothing in the lien or in the evidence by which the building intended to be charged can be identified.”
Answer. — Refused.
' A. Spath’s testimony is that the stable is close to the line of Hines’ lot, corner of East and Locust streets, and that this corner lot of Hines’ is sixty feet front on East st¿r©Gt5
December 16, 1881, verdict for plaintiff for $273 97 and judgment thereon. The defendant, thereupon, took this writ of error, assigning for error the refusal of the Court to affirm the above point.
James II. Heed and 8. A. MoOlung for plaintiffs in error.
A. J. Barton and John Barton for defendant in error.
October 25th, 1882.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
We think there was sufficient in the evidence of Andrew Spath under which the lot in question could be identified from the description contained in the mechanic's lien. The Courts are in favor of sustaining these claims when the property is so described that those acquainted with the neighborhood are able to identify it.
Judgment affirmed.