Price v. Kirk
| Decision Date | 05 May 1879 |
| Citation | 90 Pa. 47 |
| Parties | Price <I>versus</I> Kirk. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester county: Of January Term, 1879, No. 98. R. Jones Monaghan, for plaintiff in error.—This case seems to be ruled by Bank v. Gries, 11 Casey 423. Services of the kind for which the plaintiff seeks the lien are embraced in the meaning of the statute. In rendering such services, a party certainly "performs labor," and furnishes labor and skill. The labor is performed and labor and skill furnished "for erecting" and "constructing" a building: Knight v. Norris, 13 Minn. 473.
William B. Waddell, for defendant in error.—It is submitted that the cases referred to by the plaintiff in error, were dependent on something more being done by the architect than merely drawing plans and specifications. He either superintended or assisted in superintending the erection of the building.
In Bank v. Gries, supra, the work was overseen and directed by the architect. See Rush v. Able, post, page 153.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered May 5th 1879, PER CURIAM.
Without referring to the finding of the court that it would appear from the record and evidence that the lien was not filed within the time provided by the statute, we are of opinion that upon the facts as found by the learned judge, to whom it was submitted without the intervention of a jury, the plaintiff had no lien. In Bank v. Gries, 11 Casey 423, the architect was employed not only to make plans and specifications for the building, but to direct and oversee its erection in accordance therewith. His claim, therefore, was for work done about the erection of the building within the words of the law. The mere drawing of the plan and writing out the specifications is no more of this character than would be the work of an attorney in preparing the contract.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaastra v. Bishop's Lodge Co.
...111 App. Div. 358, 98 N. Y. S. 128; Stephens v. Hicks, 156 N. C. 239, 72 S. E. 313, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 354, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 272; Price v. Kirk, 90 Pa. 47; Bennett v. Frederick R. Gerry Co., 273 Pa. 585, 117 A. 345; Mitchell v. Packard, 168 Mass. 467, 47 N. E. 113, 60 Am. St. Rep. 404; Lib......
-
Friedlander v. Taintor
...Bank of Pennsylvania v. Gries, 35 Pa.St. 423. Simply providing plans and specifications does not entitle one to a mechanic's lien. Price v. Kirk, 90 Pa.St. 47; Rush v. Able, 90 Pa.St. 153; Foushee Grigsby, 12 Bush. 76 (Ky.); Ames v. Dyer, 41 Me. 397. Under statutes similar to ours the weigh......
-
Field & Slocomb v. Consol. Mineral Water Co.
...entitled to a lien (Bank of Penna v. Gries, 35 Pa. 423); but one who furnishes plans alone, and does not supervise, is not entitled (Price v. Kirk, 90 Pa. 47; Rush v. Able, 90 Pa. 153). In Nebraska a lien is given for merely furnishing plans. Henry & Coatsworth Co. v. Halter, 79 N. W. 616, ......
-
Fiske v. School District of City of Lincoln
...no work "for or about the construction of the building," and has, therefore, no lien. (Bank of Pennsylvania v. Gries, 35 Pa. 423; Price v. Kirk, 90 Pa. 47.) So in Texas, architect's fees cannot be considered as a part of the estimate of construction. (Smith v. Dickey, 74 Tex. 61, 11 S.W. 10......