Majority
p. 416William E. Wood & Company vs. Wilmington Conference Academy. Kent County, April Term, 1895. contended that with the destruction of the building the lien was lost and could not exist as against land alone; Carter vs. Humboldt Fire Ins. Co., 12 Ia. 287 -92; Coddington vs. Dry Dock Co., 31 N. J. L. 477 ; Presbyterian Church vs. Stettler, 26 Pa. 245 ; Wigton vs. Brooks, 28 id. 161.
Headnote
Mechanics’ Lien.—A mechanics’ lien on a building cannot attach to the ground after the building is destroyed.In this case the statement was filed January 25th, 1875, and the affidavit of defence April 28th, 1875. On April 20th, 1895, an agreement of counsel was filed as follows:
“ And now, to wit, this 20th day of April, A. D. 1895, it is stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, in the above stated case that the building or structure, to wit, the Conference Academy Building for which the labor and materials were furnished by the plaintiff (and to secure the payment wherefor and a lien therefor under the statute the said suit was instituted) was wholly consumed and destroyed by fire on the 10th day of March, A. D. 1876, so that the said building or structure for the erection and construction whereof said materials were furnished and labor performed (which constitute the predicate of said suit) no longer exists.”
Upon this statement of fact question was submitted to the Court whether there could be any lien upon the land after the destruction of the building.
Massey, for the plaintiff,
Day, for the defendant, contra.
It appearing from the agreement of counsel as to the fact that the building was destroyed it is cleat upon the authorities that no lien could attach to the land thereafter. 3STo judgment can, therefore, be given upon the statement filed.