Jobsen v. Boden
Decision Date | 01 July 1848 |
Citation | 8 Pa. 463 |
Parties | JOBSEN <I>v.</I> BODEN. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
McAllister, for plaintiff in error.
Fisher, contrà.
July 1. BELL, J.
As early as the year 1819, it was decided by the District Court of Philadelphia, that a journeyman mechanic employed in working on a building, under the original contractor or master-mason, could not file a lien against the erection, under the act of 1806, notwithstanding the general or comprehensive words of the statute, which, taken literally, would seem to include every grade and class of workmen, from the chief builder down to the least important day-labourer: Cobb v. Traquair, 1 Frank. Jour. 97. The doctrine was repeated by Judge Randall, then of the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county, in Barnes v. Wright, 2 Wh. 196; and, indeed, it seems to have been everywhere recognised by the profession as a well established principle, firmly founded in reasons of public policy and convenience. The act of 16th June, 1836, which embodies and supplies former enactments on the subject of mechanics' liens, is not broader in its terms descriptive of the persons entitled to create a lien, than is the act of 1806. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the latter act enlarges the circle of those upon whom the first statute conferred the privilege of lien, by admitting to a participation a class of workmen not before contemplated. Had such been the intention, the legislature, doubtless acquainted with the prior adjudications and the prevailing opinion on the subject, would have taken care to manifest it by unequivocal language. But, in this respect, the only difference between the two enactments is, that the older of them, after naming certain trades and occupations which should be entitled to the benefit of its provisions, extends them to "any other person or persons employed in furnishing materials for, or in erecting or constructing such house or other building;" while the younger, rejecting the special enumeration as redundant, authorizes generally a lien for the "payment of all debts contracted for work done or materials furnished for or about the erection or construction of" any building. That, in this feature of them, the statutes are equally extensive, is indeed shown by Savoy v. Salter & Jones, 2 Rawle, 343; in which it was held, that the act of 1806 is not confined to the classes of persons specially enumerated in it, but embraces all persons employed either as builders or material-men. As, then, the law stood, under these enactments, it is very certain one merely engaged as a journeyman was not within their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Titusville Iron Works v. Keystone Oil Co.
...to persons held not to be embraced therein. It never was supposed that the act of 1845 was an assumption of judicial authority: See Jobsen v. Boden, 8 Pa. 463; of Penn. v. Gries, 35 Pa. 426. The act of 1887 is but a supplement to the acts of 1836 and 1845: Roth v. Hobson, 5 Pa. C.C.R. 17. M......
-
Philadelphia to Use v. McLinden
...1896: Phila. v. Stewart, 195 Pa. 309; Phila. v. Stewart, 201 Pa. 526; Norristown v. Norristown Pass. Ry. Co., 148 Pa. 87; Jobsen v. Boden, 8 Pa. 463; Guthrie v. Horner, 12 Pa. 236; Harlan v. Rand, 27 Pa. 511; Titusville Iron Works v. Keystone Oil Co., 122 Pa. 627; Continental Nat. Bank v. D......
-
Waters v. Wolf
... ... that every one who had done a stroke of work upon a building ... was entitled to a lien. But in Jobsen v. Boden, 8 ... Pa. 463, a lien filed by a journeyman carpenter, it was ... decided that it was not intended to enlarge the scope of the ... act ... ...