Skip to content

Williams v. Controllers

Williams versus Controllers

Williams v. Controllers, 18 Pa. 275 (1852)

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided: April 12, 1852
Judges: Lowrie
Citations: 18 Pa. 2751852 Pa. LEXIS 34

Cited by 3

Headnotes

A public school house of the first school district of Pennsylvania, is not subject, under the Mechanics’ Lien Act, to a claim for materials furnished to the contractor for the erection of the building.

Summary

Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. This was a scire facias by'Williams and others against the controllers of the public schools of the first school district of Pehnsylvania, as owners or reputed owners, and John Lewis contractor; and was issued upon a claim filed under the Mechanics’ Lien Law for lumber furnished under a contract with Lewis, the contractor for the erection of the Roxborough public school building against which the claim was filed. For the controllers was pleaded non assumpsit, payment, set-off with leave, &c.; and further, that the plaintiffs ought not to maintain their claim, because the building described in the claim was contracted to be erected for the controllers of the public schools of the first school district of Pennsylvania, for the use of the people of the city and county of Philadelphia for public school purposes, and to be paid for out of the school fund held by the treasurer of said county, &e. To the first, second, and third pleas, replications were filed; and to the fourth a demurrer. The issues of fact were tried and verdict rendered for plaintiffs, and afterwards the Court entered judgment for the defendants. Error was assigned to the entering of judgment on the demurrer; also to the decision that the school-house in question was not the subject of a mechanic’s lien.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Lowrie

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered, by Lowrie, J.

Where there can be no execution, there can be no action, and as a levari facias is the only execution proper on a judgment on a mechanic’s lien, and as that sort of execution is not allowed against a county, it follows that this form of action cannot be sustained, if these defendants come within the meaning of the word “county”. The Execution Act of 1836, s. 72, would seem to consider such a body as coming within the spirit of the description, for it excepts from the ordinary execution against corporations, all counties, townships, and “other public corporations and the impolicy of such an execution against such a corporation is illustrated by Mr. Justice Kennedy, in Wilson v. The Commissioners of Huntingdon County, 7 W. & Ser. 199.

“ The first school district of Pennsylvania,” is the city and county of Philadelphia, or in other words, the county of Philadelphia including the city. The controllers are therefore the officers of the county in that part of its public business which relates to public schools. If they are sued, they are merely the agents of the county to attend to the suit. The county is in fact the party under a particular name, and it must provide the means of satisfying the judgment, if one be obtained. They represented the county for school purposes before, they were incorporated, and their relation is in no way changed by the fact of incorporation. It is abandoning substance and standing upon words, to say that *278 their corporate name is anything but a name of the county of Philadelphia, indicating a particular aspect of its interests. And no party suffers by being limited to the remedy by mandamus, a very good and effectual writ, if adopted and executed according to the spirit of the law.

The claim here is for materials furnished by persons who never had any contract with the controllers, and who seek to make the county liable, because the builder to whom they sold the materials has failed to pay them. Such a lien may be allowed against private persons, without implying that the public and its officers should also be held to the duty and risk of seeing that all the workmen and material men are paid their claims before they settle with the man with whom they contracted to do the whole work. If such is the duty of school directors, they fill an unrewarded office at a risk, that is not generally taken into account.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Rosenberg v. Cupersmith87 A. 570 (Pa. 1913)
City of Philadelphia ex rel. Pugh v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad1 Pa. Super. 236 (1896)
Philadelphia v. School District40 Pa. D. & C. 47 (1940)

Most recent

Philadelphia v. School District40 Pa. D. & C. 47 (1940)
Rosenberg v. Cupersmith87 A. 570 (Pa. 1913)
City of Philadelphia ex rel. Pugh v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad1 Pa. Super. 236 (1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.