Bayer v. Reeside

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Bayer v. Reeside

14 Pa. 167, 1850 Pa. LEXIS 191

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 28, 1850

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 Pa. 167 (Bayer v. Reeside) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bayer v. Reeside, 14 Pa. 167, 1850 Pa. LEXIS 191 (Pa. 1850).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Pa. 167, 1850 Pa. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayer-v-reeside-pa-1850.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack