TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Price v. Kirk

Price versus Kirk

Price v. Kirk, 90 Pa. 47 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 5, 1879
Judges
Gordon, Mercur, Paxson, Sharswood, Sterrett, Trunkey, Woodward
Citations
90 Pa. 471879 Pa. LEXIS 194
Headnotes
1. An architect who simply provided the plans and specifications for a building, is not entitled to a lien against said building, for his labor. 2. Bank v. Gries, 11 Casey 423, distinguished.
Summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester county: Of January Term, 1879, No. 98. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien issued by Benjamin D. Price against William S. Kirk. The claimed filed set forth: “ The amount claimed to be due is $195, for drawings, plans and specifications, and for labor and services in and about directing and overseeing the same, furnished from October 5th 1874, to November 29th 1875, by the claimant as an architect, for and about the erection and construction of said building.” The defendant pleaded that the work and labor set forth in the claim were not the subject of a mechanic’s lien. The case was heard without a jury by Butler, P. J., who found the following facts: “ That the plaintiff is an architect; that his claim is for preparing drawings and specifications for the house against which his lien is entered and (in his own language) three visits to West Chester to locate the building and explain the drawings to mechanics. We find, however, that he visited West Chester but once to explain the drawings; that this was before the building was commenced and consumed a very short period of time. He did not superintend the construction of the house or have anything to do with it, other than has been stated.” The court also found that the lien was not filed in time, but this question was not raised at the trial. In an opinion the court, inter alia, said: “ It is difficult to see how plaintiff can be held to have performed ‘work for or about the construction of the building.’ The claim filed is for ‘ drawings, plans and specifications, and for labor and services in and about directing and overseeing the same.’ It is further stated that these plans were for the construction of a building. The drawings of plans and specifications of itself, is not ‘ work’ within the meaning of the statute; not work in the ordinary sense of the term. An architect is not a mechanic or laborer. The plaintiff here has no better claim to a lien than the scrivener who copies specifications or draws contracts for the building or the surveyor who draws the plan upon the ground. Judgment must, therefore, be entered for the defendant.” This action was assigned for error by the plaintiff who took this writ.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered 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 *49 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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1919: 11920: 11925: 11927: 11931: 11951: 11964: 11965: 11967: 12017: 12023: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hoekstra v. Hopkins87 Pa. Super. 15 (1925)
  2. Dyer v. Wallace107 A. 754 (Pa. 1919)
  3. McDonald v. Filice252 Cal. App. 2d 613 (1967)
  4. Design Associates, Inc. v. Welch224 Cal. App. 2d 165 (1964)
  5. Alan Porter Lee, Inc. v. Du-Rite Products Co.79 A.2d 218 (Pa. 1951)
  6. Gaastra v. Bishop's Lodge Co.299 P. 347 (N.M. 1931)

Most recent

  1. Elliot Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company67 F.4th 182 (4th Cir. 2023)
  2. Widmer Engineering, Inc. v. Five-R Excavating, Inc. and The Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., Inc.Nos. Widmer Engineering, Inc. v. Five-R Excavating, Inc. and The Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., Inc. - 257 C.D. 2016 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 13, 2017)
  3. McDonald v. Filice252 Cal. App. 2d 613 (1967)
  4. Dagit v. Radnor Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc.38 Pa. D. & C.2d 389 (1965)
  5. Design Associates, Inc. v. Welch224 Cal. App. 2d 165 (1964)
  6. Alan Porter Lee, Inc. v. Du-Rite Products Co.79 A.2d 218 (Pa. 1951)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list