
    GEISS VS. RAPP AND RODENBERGER.
    When materials are furnished under an entire contract a lien is good if filed in six months from the delivery of the last article.
    In a scire facias sur Mechamos Lien a plea of not guilty is a nullity.
    A defendant pleading that the materials were not furnished within six months, admits all of the claim except this faot.
    Error to Common Pleas of Schuylkill County; No. 52, March Term, 1855. Scire facias sur Mechanics Lien for 201,000 bricks. Jacob Geiss pleads not guilty. Henry Geiss, terre-tenant, pleads that claim was not filed within six months and is not a lien. 200.000 bricks were delivered on or before October 17,1845,' and 1.000 on November 24,1845. The lien was filed May 12,1846. Henry Geiss showed deed from Jacob Geiss, dated November 26, 1849. The contract for the bricks was between Jacob Geiss and Henry Rapp. The lien was filed by Rapp & Rodenberger. Rodenberger was Rapp’s partner. Geiss requested the Court to charge that the plaintiffs cannot recover as the agreement was with Rapp alone, and the lien should have been in his name alone. Second, if they can recover, they are not entitled to more than the value of the last 1,000 brick, as they were all that were delivered in six months of filing the lien.. The Court refused to so instruct the jury and directed them if they believed the evidence, that plaintiffs are entitled to the value of the bricks with interest. April 30, 1855, verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $651,171 On August 22, 1846, Geiss wrote to Brobst (who afterwards bought the lien) “if you buy that lien of Rodenberger & Rapp you can feel yourself perfectly safe with interest.” Geiss took a writ of error and assigned the charge of the Court as error.
    
      F. W. Hughes, Esq., for plaintiff in error
    argued that Rapp & Rodenberger were performing Rapp’s contract. They are not contractors, but should have named Rapp as the contractor, because the statute requires him to be named. Knabb’s Appeal 10, Barr 189; Church vs. Allison, 10 Barr 413; Hinchman vs. Graham, 2 S. & R. 170; Hills vs. Elliott, 16 S. & R. 56.
    
      John W. Roseberry and John Bannan, Esqs., for defendant in error
    argued the action was on the delivery of the bricks. Rapp made the contract in behalf of the firm which fact Geiss knew. The Court will not enable Geiss to interpose a technical objection so as to defeat Brobst, who had been assured by Geiss that the lien was all right before he purchased it.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower Court on February 28, 1857, in the following opinion by

Lowrie, J.:

After the lien was filed, the defendant below encouraged another person to become the purchaser of it, and now, when he or the purchaser from him, makes defence on grounds of mere form, he must expect to be held very strictly to the demands of form himself.

In fact the defendant makes no real defence, though there is a , plea of not guilty in for him, which is senseless, and therefore a nullity.

It is the subsequent purchaser of the building who makes defence, pleading that the lien was not filed within six months. He traverses no part of the claim in form or substance except this, and therefore he admits all but this. He had no right to any instruction from the Court on any other point than this, and he got none.

On this point the instruction was substantially, that the last materials having been furnished within six months, the lien was good -if all were furnished on one contract. This was right.

Judgment affirmed, and record remitted.  