George Carroll & Bro Co. v. Young

• Decision Date: 07 January 1903
• Docket Number: 24.
• Citation: 119 F. 576
• Parties: GEORGE CARROLL & BRO. CO. et al. v. YOUNG.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

119 F. 576

GEORGE CARROLL & BRO. CO. et al. v. YOUNG.

No. 24.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

January 7, 1903

Henry A. Clark, for appellants.

John S Rilling and Henry E. Fish, for appellee.

Before ACHESON, DALLAS, and GRAY, Circuit Judges.

ACHESON Circuit Judge.

The principal asset of the bankrupt, the Hygeian Milk Company was its manufacturing plant, being a two-storied brick building equipped with boiler and engine, vats, pumps, tanks and other machinery for making condensed milk, which the bankrupt had erected upon a piece of land in the city of Erie, county of Erie, Pa., held by the bankrupt under a lease for years. The appellants, the George Carroll & Brother Company and James McCarty, respectively, had furnished materials (the former, woodwork and lumber to the amount of $1,246.93; the latter, brick to the amount of $1,451) for the construction and erection of this building. Each of these parties for the materials so furnished by them had filed a lien under the provisions of the acts of assembly of Pennsylvania, and more particularly under the acts of February 17, 1858 (P.L. 29), and April 11, 1866 (P.L. 649), which extend the lien law to the interest of tenants of leased estates for 'all improvements, engines, pumps, machinery, screens, and fixtures' erected by such tenants on leased lands in certain counties, including the county of Erie. The lien of the George Carroll & Brother Company, after reciting that the building stands on land leased by the Hygeian Milk Company, states that the lien is filed 'against the interest of the said Hygeian Milk Company in said building and the said leased lot or piece of ground and curtilage appurtenant to said building. ' The lien of James McCarty states that he files his claim 'against the Hygeian Milk Company, lessees of the premises hereinafter more fully and particularly described, and for material furnished for the construction and erection of a two-story building, with basement, on said premises, and against the building and the ground covered thereby, and so much other ground immediately adjacent thereto and leased to the said Hygeian Milk Company as may be necessary for the ordinary and useful purposes of the same; * * * and the lien is filed against the leasehold interest of said Hygeian Milk Company in the hereinafter described land and building, under the provisions of the acts of assembly of Pennsylvania,' etc.

The referee in bankruptcy in his final report states that 'the lien of the George Carroll & Brother Company, as amended, seems to be in proper form as required by the act of April 17, 1858,' but that the lien of James McCarty is open to the objection that it is 'not against the interest of the tenant in the specific improvement. ' In making this distinction, evidently the referee overlooked that part of the McCarty lien last above quoted. Both liens were filed against the interest of the tenant of the leased premises in the building and ground covered by the building, and so much ground adjacent and belonging thereto as is necessary for the ordinary and useful purposes of the building. There is no substantial difference between these liens in their terms, and we think that each of them complies with the statutory requirements. Thomas v. Smith, 42 Pa. 68, 73; Association v. Kearns, 103 Pa. 403, 407, 408. These cases decide that a building for business purposes erected by a tenant of a leased estate upon the leased land is an 'improvement,' within the meaning of the act of February, 17, 1858, and that such building, together with the ground covered by it and so much adjacent ground as is necessary for the enjoyment of the building (to the extent of the interest of the tenant therein), is subject to liens for work done and for materials furnished for the erection of such building. We are of the opinion that the trustee in bankruptcy here took the estate of the bankrupt subject to the liens of these appellants as filed by them, respectively.

The trustee presented to the referee in bankruptcy a petition setting forth the filing of six liens (including those of the appellants) against the property, and that it 'would be impossible to...