Shannon v. Broadbent

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania July 11, 1894

Shannon v. Broadbent, 162 Pa. 194 (Pa. 1894)

29 A. 865

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Green,

The affidavit of defence alleges that the materials, for which the lien in this case was filed, were not furnished within six months before the lien was filed and were furnished more than six months before that time.

Although the claim is upon an apportioned lien, this averment takes away the prima facies of the claim and makes it necessary to know the whole of the facts as to the time and circumstances of delivery before the question of ultimate liability can be properly determined. It is contended by the appellees *199that, being an apportioned lien, it is good against all the houses for six months after the last house was finished, although the particular house in question may have been finished long before. The case of Wilson v. Forder, 30 Pa. 129, decides against this proposition, and although counsel for the appellees treat that decision as if it were nugatory, we do not find that it has ever been overruled, and we are not referred to any ease in which the same question has been decided in opposition to it. We do not propose to decide that or any of the other questions discussed in the paper-books, upon a mere motion for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. It is highly necessary that the precise facts should be known and appear upon the record in order to intelligently decide upon the several questions arising, and for that purpose the case must be sent to a jury and regularly tried on all its merits.

Judgment reversed and procedendo awarded.

Reference

Full Case Name: Shannon v. Broadbent, Appellants Shannon v. McDuffee
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Mechanic's lien — Apportioned claim — Six months — Affidavit of defence. An affidavit of defence to a sei. fa. on an apportioned mechanic’s claim which alleges that the materials for which the lien is claimed were not furnished to the house in question within six months before the claim was filed, and were furnished more than six months before that time, is sufficient to prevent judgment. Such an averment takes away the prima facies of the claim and makes it necessary to know the whole of the facts as to the time and circumstances of delivery, before the question of ultimate liability can be determined. While the case of Wilson v. Forder, 30 Pa. 129, decided that, in the case of an apportioned lien, it is necessary that work shall have been done or materials furnished to the particular house in question within six months of the filing of the claim, and that case does not appear to have been overruled, the Supreme Court will not consider this question upon a mere motion for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Specification of materials furnished each house. Besides the defence above referred to, the affidavit in this case also alleged that it was not impossible for the claimants to have specified the items furnished for the house in question, but that they could readily have specified and itemized the same; also that the claim did not properly and sufficiently set forth the amount of material furnished and the amount or the sum claimed to be due: Held, that the court would not pass upon these questions without a jury trial.