Case Name: Tenth National Bank of Philadelphia v. Smith Construction Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1907-10-07
Citations: 34 Pa. Super. 471
Docket Number: No. 1; Appeal, No. 23
Parties: Tenth National Bank of Philadelphia v. Smith Construction Company
Judges: Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 471–471

Head Matter:
Tenth National Bank of Philadelphia v. Smith Construction Company
(No. 1).
October 7, 1907 :
Mechanics’ liens — Claim against public improvement — Notice to owner —Subcontractor.
A subcontractor who furnishes material for a city improvement, in availing himself of the provisions of sec. 6 of the Act, of June 4, 1901, P. L. 431, to establish a claim against a public improvement, must give the preliminary notice of an intention to file a lien as required to be given under sec. 8 of the act to establish a lien against the property of a private owner.
Argued March 13, 1907.
Appeal, No. 23, March T., 1907, by William H. Grothe, from decree of C. P. York Co., April Term, 1905, No. 1, sustaining exceptions to auditor’s report in case of The Tenth National Bank of Philadelphia v. The Smith Construction Company.
Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.
Reversed.
Exceptions to auditor’s report.
For the facts see Tenth National Bank of Philadelphia v. Smith Construction Company (No. 1), 218 Pa. 581.
Charles A. Hawkins, with him Jere S. Black, for appellant.
Henry C. Niles, with him George E. Neff, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
In The Tenth National Bank of Philadelphia (Fourth Street National Bank of Philadelphia, Appellant) v. The Smith Construction Company, 218 Pa. 581, decided by the Supreme Court on June 3, 1907, the same question as is presented for our consideration in this appeal was disposed of, and following that decision for the reasons therein stated, the same order is made. The decree in this case is reversed and the report of the auditor absolutely confirmed, the costs on this appeal to be paid by the appellee.