Drake v. Stout (Et Al.)

127 A. 629, 282 Pa. 223, 1925 Pa. LEXIS 603
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 5, 1925·No. Appeal, 46·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien on defendant’s property. The premises were later sold by the sheriff. Following the sheriff’s sale, appellant, who was a judgment creditor of defendant and who had intervened, moved to have plaintiff’s lien stricken off. The rule was discharged and this appeal followed. After the appeal was taken, but before it was filed in the lower court, the plaintiff-appellee induced the sheriff to pay him the amount of his claim, and he marked the lien satisfied.

The appeal cannot be considered for three reasons, each of which is fatal: (1) Because appellant had no standing to ask the court below to strike off appellee’s mechanic’s lien, for, except as to the parties to it, the lien was res inter alios acta; (2) because the refusal to strike off a lien is an interlocutory order, not the subject of an appeal; and (3) because the lien has been satisfied of record, thereby making moot all the questions attempted to be raised by the appeal.

The appeal is quashed.

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

Drake v. Stout (Et Al.), 127 A. 629, 282 Pa. 223, 1925 Pa. LEXIS 603 (Pa. 1925).

127 A. 629 (Drake v. Stout (Et Al.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morehall Contracting Co. v. Brittany Estates Ltd. Partnership
27 Pa. D. & C.4th 54 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1995)
Kessler v. Mandel Et Ux.
40 A.2d 926 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Knoell v. Carey
140 A. 522 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Knoell v. Carey
9 Pa. D. & C. 381 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)