
    HILL v. BRAMALL.
    September 17, 1836.
    
      Motion for a judgment for ward of an affidavit of defence.
    
    
      Scire facias on a mechanic’s claim. An affidavit of defence under the 2d section of the act of the 28th of March 1835. merely alleged that the defendant « never contracted with the plaintiff in any war? whatever.” Held, that the affidavit did not disclose a defence; and being defective, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.
    THIS was a scire facias on a mechanic’s claim. The plaintiff had duly filed a copy of the claim. The defendant filed an affidavit of defence, which was in these words : “ that he has a just and true defence to the whole amount claimed by the plaintiff in the above suit. The deponent never contracted with the plaintiff in any way whatever, and he firmly believes that the claim against him is wholly unauthorized by law.”
    
      J. If. Campbell, for the plaintiff,
    contended, that the affidavit was defective. It did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a defence. A mechanic’s claim may be good, although the owner, such as the present defendant, did not contract with the plaintiff.
    
      J. P. Morris, Jim., contra.
    
   Per Curiam.

The act of the 28th of March 1835 requires the defendant to state in his affidavit “ the nature and character” of his defence. If his allegations of facts do not, in law, amount to a de-fence, judgment must be rendered against him. (Knox v. Reeside, ante, p. 294.) Here the defendant says that he never contracted with the plaintiff in any way whatever. Whether this allegation would be sufficient in a personal action against him it is unnecessary to decide ; but this is a different kind of action. It is not denied that the materials have been furnished to, and on the credit of, the building ; and the building may be liable, although the defendant did not contract with the plaintiff in any way whatever. This is decided in Savoy v. Jones, 2 Rawle 343.

Judgment for plaintiff.  