Reading v. Hopson

• Decision Date: 23 June 1879
• Parties: Reading <I>et al. versus</I> Hopson.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

90 Pa. 494

Reading et al. versus Hopson.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 5, 1879.

June 23, 1879.

June 5th 1879.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ. WOODWARD, J., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming county: Of May Term 1877, No. 163.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. O. Parker, J. Eutermarks, R. P. Allen and J. W. Maynard, for plaintiffs in error.—The mechanics' lien was such a prior lien as would divest the lien of the mortgage.

Henry C. Parsons and Samuel Linn, for defendant in error.— In the distribution of the proceeds of a sheriff's sale, a judgment in a scire facias on a mechanics' lien is not even prima facie evidence that it was filed within six months after the completion of the work, so as to give it relation back to the commencement of the building, in a contest with other lien-creditors. As a judgment it ranks merely from its date: Norris's Appeal, 6 Casey 122; McCay's Appeal, 1 Wright 128; Hahn's Appeal, 3 Id. 412.

Chief Justice SHARSWOOD delivered the opinion of the court, June 23d 1879.

Several questions have been raised upon this record which we deem it unnecessary to consider. There is one point which in our opinion disposes of the case. At the time the mortgage of Hopson was recorded there was no prior lien of record against the premises. Subsequently, however, a mechanics' claim was filed, and the allegation is, and the offer was to prove that the building was commenced prior to the mortgage, and that the lien of the claim antedated the mortgage by reason thereof. It did not appear on the face of the claim when the building was commenced. The question then is whether the purchaser at the sheriff's sale can give parol evidence of this fact so as to show that the lien of the mortgage was divested. As between the claimant and the mortgagee this undoubtedly might have been done, for the reason that if the fact were so the mortgagee was bound to take notice of it. He is affected by the actual state of things on the ground. If when he takes his mortgage a building has been commenced, he knows or ought to know that the liens of mechanics and material men for work done or materials furnished subsequently, will relate back to the commencement of the building. But an entirely different case is presented when the question arises between the mortgagee and the purchaser at sheriff's sale. As the bidder at sheriff's sale is not bound to look beyond the record in determining what he...