
    Lightfoot versus Krug et al.
    
    A kitchen is an -erection which will authorize the filing of a mechanics’ lien, though it may bind the main building to which the kitchen is attached.
    Nelson v. Campbell, 4 Casey 156, affirmed.
    Error to the Common Pleas of Allegheny county.
      
    
    This was a scire facias by Krug & Kohlman against Jacob Light-foot, on a mechanic’s claim for $53.06, which was filed against a “one-storied brick kitchen, or back building,” erected on the easterly half of lot No. 40, in Bell, Edwards & Breed’s plan of lots in the borough' of Birmingham, “being twelve by fourteen feet square, and one story high.”
    The defendant filed the following affidavit of defence:—
    “ Before me, personally came John Lightfoot, agent for Jacob Lightfoot, who for defence saith, that the alleged building, against which the mechanic’s lien is filed, is not such a building as the act contemplated a lien would lie against; it being the mere addition to the main building of a kitchen; such main building being a two-storied brick house.
    “John Lightroot.”
    On motion of the plaintiffs’ counsel, the court below gave judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence,' which was here assigned for error.
    
      
      F. H. Collier, for the plaintiff in error,
    cited Landis’s Appeal, 10 Barr 379; Miller v. Oliver, 8 Watts 514.
    
      R. B. Carnahan, for the defendant in error,
    cited and relied npon.the case of Nelson v. Campbell, 4 Casey 156.
    
      
       This ease was argued at Pittsburgh, and decided at Philadelphia on the 3d January 1860. '
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Thompson, J.

The new erection was a kitchen or back building. Was this subject .to a lien of the mechanic? The court below held that it was. In this they were right. It is clearly within the principle, of Nelson v. Campbell, 4 Casey 156, and is ruled by it.

Judgment affirmed.  