Appeal, No. 32, March T., 1956, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1952, No. 50, in case of Contractors Lumber and Supply Company v. Thomas E. Quinette et al. Judgment affirmed. Scire facias sur mechanic's lien proceeding. Before NIXON, J. Verdict for defendants; plaintiff's motion for new trial refused and judgment entered on verdict. Plaintiff appealed.
Charles F. Dean, for appellant.
William L. Jacob, with him William L. Jacob, Jr., for appellees.
Before Stern, C.j., Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO
John Babich, a building contractor, entered into an agreement with Thomas Quinette and his wife, Hilda P. Quinette, to build for them a house on their lot in Churchill Borough, Allegheny County. Since Thomas
Quinette is a war veteran, the contract was not binding until and unless the Veterans Bureau Administration approved it. It contained a "no lien" provision and was duly recorded in the office of the Prothonotary of Allegheny County.
The Veterans Bureau Administration, having approved the contract, Babich proceeded to the fulfillment of it. During the construction of the house, the Contractors Lumber and Supply Company, the plaintiff in this case, encountering difficulties with the contractor Babich over payment of bills submitted, ceased, toward the end of August, 1951, delivering materials to the job. Several days later, about September 5, 1951, Thomas Quinette, the defendant, according to the plaintiff's allegations, called at the offices of the plaintiff company to urge the necessity for resumption of the plaintiff's services, and promised orally that he would himself pay for supplies furnished. Upon this promise the plaintiff company resumed its services but discontinued again on December 12, 1951, because Quinette did not make the payments promised.
Filing a mechanic's lien in the sum of $3,975 against the defendants, the plaintiff company then issued a scire facias sur mechanics lien to which the defendants filed an Answer denying liability and controverting that Thomas Quinette had ever agreed orally or otherwise to pay for the materials supplied by the plaintiff company.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiff has appealed from the decision of the lower Court refusing a new trial. No question has been raised in this appeal as to he sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict. Thus we will limit ourselves ...