Court Opinion

ID: 9750925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:48:29.416333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:29.219670
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Roberts:
I dissent from the majority’s use of an absolute rule requiring a lienholder to recover a verdict on its claim within five years from the date of issue of the *578sci. fa. As the lower court properly pointed out, under the rule adopted by the majority, “the mechanics lien . . . could be nullified in almost every case in Philadelphia County by the simple expedient of ordering it on the trial list for jury trial (unless the Court Administrator chooses to grant a special listing), since the Philadelphia jury trial list as it is now functioning requires more than five years after the motion for trial until a trial can be had.” Furthermore, the majority concedes that appellee “filed a petition for special listing . . . which should have been granted but was denied.” I cannot believe that the Legislature intended to put lienholders at the complete peril of delays which are either fortuitous or inherent in the judicial system as it presently operates. A more sensible reading of the five year requirement would bar a lienholder only if the reason for his not recovering a verdict within five years was due to his own fault. Since the court below found no such fault, and since I do not believe that such a finding is compelled by the record before us, I would affirm the judgment in favor of appellee.*
Mr. Justice O’Brien joins in this dissent.

 In accordance with appellee’s agreement at oral argument, I would modify the judgment to be in rem only.