The Presbyterian Church v. Stettler
| Decision Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Parties | The Presbyterian Church versus Stettler. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
McElroy, for plaintiff in error.
Vanderveer, for defendant in error.
The equity of a mechanic's lien upon a building, is founded upon the labour and materials furnished by him in constructing it. That the land on which the building stands goes with the building, in case of a sale, is the result of necessity, because the building cannot be enjoyed without it. The legislative provisions are founded on that necessity, and do not change the character of the lien in this respect. It is not founded on any contract with the owner of the land. It is not necessarily one of his debts. It may be created by a contractor, who has already received from the owner full compensation for furnishing the materials and erecting the building. Attaching itself to the building, and depending upon it for existence, the lien must necessarily share the fate of the building. No amount of labour or materials furnished for the erection of a building, would create a lien if no building should be erected. So, if the building, after erection, should be destroyed by accident, before the ground on which it stood passed to a purchaser, the lien would be gone. The reason for binding the land is gone with the building. Any other construction would defeat one of the objects of the law, which was to promote the improvement of the country, by encouraging mechanics and material-men to furnish labour and materials for erecting buildings. But if the lien continues on the land, after the building is destroyed, how are those who erect the new building on the premises to be protected? Their equity against it is undoubtedly superior to the claims upon the building that was destroyed. And yet the latter, if they exist at all, must be preferred to the former. Under such a rule all further improvement upon the premises might be prevented. In this case the court held, that a mechanic's lien against a former building was good against one erected afterwards, although neither the labour nor materials on which the claim is founded, were performed or furnished for the building thus charged. In this we think there was error. It follows, from what has already been said, that the equity of the claim does not extend to the ground, except when it becomes necessary to the enjoyment of the building. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
... ... v. Crisp, 146 Cal. 686, 106 Am. St. 75, ... 81 P. 30, 2 Ann. Cas. 811; Presbyterian Church v ... Stettler, 26 Pa. 246; Wood v. Wilmington Conference ... Academy, 1 Marv. (Del.) ... ...
-
Albuquerque Lumber Co. v. Montevista Co.
...land only as an incident to the lien on the building or structure. For Pennsylvania cases enunciating the doctrine, see Presbyterian Church v. Stettler, 26 Pa. 246; Wigton & Brooks's Appeal, 28 Pa. 161; Short v. Miller, 120 Pa. 470, 14 A. 374; Short v. Ames, 121 Pa. 530, 15 A. 607; Titusvil......
-
Chamberlain v. City of Lewiston
...has been begun, to say nothing of completed. (Doll v. Young, 149 Ky. 347, 149 S.W. 854; Wigton's Appeal, 28 Pa. 161; Presbyterian Church v. Stettler, 26 Pa. 246.) for molds to aid in concrete construction, which is afterward taken away, is not lienable. (Rittenhouse & Embree Co. v. Brown & ......
-
Titusville Iron-Works v. Keystone Oil Co.
...This is such an essential characteristic, that if the building be destroyed by fire, or otherwise, the lien is discharged: Presbyterian Church v. Stettler, 26 Pa. 246; Wigton's App., 28 Pa. 161. Applying that principle, structure described in the present claim, would, by its destruction dis......