TABLE OF CASES CITED. Com. v. Schneipp, 166 Pa. 401, 138 Hoffman's Heirs v. Stiger, I Pitts. 185, 189 189 76 134 199 3 189 189 58 91 98 128 72 197 93 128 178 93 2 I 128 26 30 147 178 22 Landis v. To mey, 4 Penny. 151, 58 Lauman's Appeal, 8 Pa. 473, 58 Leah's License, 14 Pa. 430, 150 Leahy's License, 3 Dis. R. 472, Leech v. Agnew, 7 Pa. 21, 134 Llewellyn's Appeal, 103 Pa. 458, 97 Light v. Zeller, 144 Pa. 570, 114 Lines v. Lines, 142 Pa. 149, 26 Linn v. Magley, 4 Wh 92, 30 Little v. Com., 48 Pa 337. 152 Livergood's Estate, 167 Pa. 191, 164 Livingstone v. Wolf, 36 Pa. 519. 47 Lockhart v. Railway Co., 139 Pa. 419, 203 Lodge v. Rose Valley Mills, 3 Dist. Rep 192 198 Hacker v. Oil Co., 73 Pa. 93, Hawks v. Crofton, 2 Burrows 700, Martin v. Cole, 104 W. S. 30, Megaree v. Prother, I Lack. Jurist 125, Milford Borough v. Water Co., 124 Pa.610. Miller's Estate, 159 Pa. 590, Miller v. Baker, 166 Pa. 414, Miller v. Panil, 2 Kulp 304, Mott v. Water Works Co., 48 Kan. 12, Mulholland v. Brown, 166 Pa. 486, Murdy v. McCutcheon, 95 Pa. 435, Mitten's Estate, 38 Pa. 314, 203 14 4 Seybert's Estate, 5 C. C. R. 35, Shallenberger's Appeal, 21 Pa. 337, Shallenberger v. Ramson, 59 N. W. Rep. 180 120 203 128 Sharpless v. Zeigler, 92 Pa. 470, Shinn v. Holmes, 25 Pa. 142, Shirey v. Posthethwaite, 72 Pa. 42, Shyhoff v. Fitcraft, I Ash. 171, Seiber's Appeal, 9 Atk. Rep. 863, 128 Small v. Small, 129 Pa. 366, Smith's Appeal, 7 Harris 53, 18 Smith v. Milligan, 43 Pa. 107, 180 Smith v. Overseers, 42 Leg. Intell. 345, 23 Smith v. Simmons, 103 Pa. 32, 24 Snyder v. Boss, 144 Pa. 278, 23 Spangler's Estate, 9 W. and S. 135, Stahl v. Berger, 13 Amer. Dec. 669 note, Steinbruwner v. Rachway Co., 146 Pa.504, Stewart v. Morris, 2 Kulp 311, 18 Stockton et. al. v. Demuth, 7 Watts 39, Stockwell v. Webster, 160 Pa. 473, Strohen v. Franklin Saving and Loan Association, 115 Pa. 273, Stull v. Thompson, 154 Pa. 43, 180 Stutter v. Kirkendall, 100 Pa. 307, Penna. and N. Y. C. R. R. Co. v. Bunnell, 81 Pa. 417, 48 Penna. R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 122 Pa. 512, 47 Peter's Appeal, 106 Pa. 340, 27 Phillip's Estate, 133 Pa. 436, 31 Phillips v. Meily, 106 Pa. 544, 57 Thomas v. Miller, 165 Pa. 220, 178 Pierce v. Drew, 136 Mass. 75, Planters' Bank v. Farmers' Bank, 8 Gill and J. 419. 138 Pollock v. Ray, 85 Pa. 428, 26 160 Thompson v. Musser, I Dallas 458, 91 26 140 Porter's Appeal, 94 Pa. 336, 185 375. Passenger Railway Co. v. Statler, 54 Pa. Pringle v. Pringle, 59 Pa 281, Purefoy v. Brown, 13 C. R. R. 281, 3 Amer. and Eng. Corp. Cases 564, Wharton v. Douglass, 76 Pa. 273, White's Appeal. 15 W. N. C. 313. White's Executors v. Com.. 39 Pa. 167, White v. Johnson, 2 Ash. 146, White v. Wagner, 25 N. Y. 328, Wiley v. Moor, 17 S. and R. 438, Willard's Appeal 68 Pa. 3 4, Willings v. Peters, 7 Pa. 287, Wilson v. Gibson, 10 C. C. R. 191, Winters v. De Turk, 133 Pa. 359, York Legal Record. is sufficient. We submit that if the statements attached to the notice referred to therein were sufficient to inform the sheriff and other parties interested of the names of the parties who claimed the wages due, the notice was sufficient. The notices in the cases of the Italian laborers were objected to because they did not specify with sufficient certainty to whom the services were rendered, and from whom the wages were due, which objection is based upon the following clause contained in said notices, "which amount is due him by said defendant as wages for labor and services in excavating and grading the road bed of the Wilkes-Barre and Eastern railroad on section 49, in Pocono township, said county, which were contracted to S. R. Gearhart & Erdman and Shull for la Adams or to B. D. Spring and S. R. bor claimants. Adams, doing business under the firm of August 30th, 1892. STORM, P. J. Spring & Adams." The Supreme Court The counsel for Wm. B. Strang, Jr., the has very clearly decided what a notice plaintiff in the above execution, has filed under the Act of April 9, 1872, must confour exceptions to the report of the audi- tain. In Allison v. Johnson, 92 Pa. 314, tor making the distribution of the fund they say it should set forth such facts as arising from the sale of personal property make a case within the act, so that the of the defendant, Samuel R. Adams. The officer and interested persons may know first, third and fourth exceptions raise that the labor was done within the time the same point, to wit: the right of the limited by the act, and in a business delabor claimants to share in the distribu- fined therein, the amount due and that tion on the fund. The third exception the property, subject to the lien, is emis to the sufficiency of the notices served braced in the levy made. on the sheriff by the several labor claimants. We will dispose of the third exception first. The same doctrine is held in Pardee's Appeal, 100 Pa. 408. Tested by these decisions we are constrained to hold that the notices in the cases of the Italian laborers were sufficient. On the argument of these questions before us, counsel for the plaintiff specified the notices to which he excepts, viz: the These notices aver as a fact, the amount claim of Amos Johnson for twelve dollars of the claim, that the labor performed. and eighty-five cents and the so called was within the time limited in the Act Italian claims. thirty-one in number, and in a businass defined by them, and amounting to the sum of four hundred that the property subject to this lien for and fifty-nine dollars and seventy-five labor was embraced in the sheriff's levy. cents. The claim of Amos Johnson is It is difficult to see what the counsel for objected to because the names of the la- the labor claimants had in mind when he borers are not given. On examination of used the expression, "which were conthe notice, such appears to be the fact, tracted to S. R. Adams, or to B. D. but in the body of the notice the follow- Spring and S. R. Adams, doing business ing statement is contained: "Amos John- under the firm of Spring & Adams." He son hereby claims to have a lien to the certainly did not mean that the work was amount of $12.85 as per statement of ac- done for the firm of Spring & Adams, becount made by the said S. R. Adams cause in the next sentence he asserts that hereunto attached." Upon examination the labor was done for S. R. Adams, and of the statements attached to the said no- that the property so levied upon was used tice we find the name of each laboreer and by the defendant S. R. Adams, in carrythe amount due set forth. We are there-ing on his business of grading and excafore constrained to hold that the notice vating. The only sense we are able to |