Adams v. Buhler

• Decision Date: 13 October 1888
• Docket Number: 13,049
• Citation: 18 N.E. 269,116 Ind. 100
• Parties: Adams v. Buhler et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

18 N.E. 269

116 Ind. 100

Adams v. Buhler et al

No. 13,049

Supreme Court of Indiana

October 13, 1888

From the Adams Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with costs.

R. S Peterson and E. A. Huffman, for appellant.

D. D Heller and P. G. Hooper, for appellees.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

Buhler & Chronister were awarded a decree in the court below foreclosing a mechanic's lien against in-lot No. 349, in the Southern addition to the city of Decatur, in Adams county, and also a personal judgment for ninety-three dollars and thirty-two cents against Lemuel D. Adams. From this judgment and decree Adams appealed, and, by an assignment of error duly made, brings in review the sufficiency of the complaint, the material part of which, so far as respects the questions raised, is the following, viz.: "That in the month of April, 1884, one William P. Moon had a contract for building a dwelling-house on the following real estate in Adams county, in the State of Indiana, to wit: In-lot three hundred and forty-nine, in the Southern addition to the city of Decatur, * * which said dwelling-house was to be, and the same afterwards was, constructed on a stone foundation; that the plaintiffs did and performed the stone work of said building, and built said stone foundation-walls by and under a contract made with said Moon; but at and before the time of commencing said work, * * * these plaintiffs notified the defendant Lemuel D. Adams, that they were about to perform and were performing said labor for said William P. Moon, as such contractors," etc.

The other averments in the complaint relate to the completion of the work, the giving of notice by the plaintiffs of their intention to hold a lien, and to the amount which remains due and unpaid, the averments in all those respects being altogether formal and sufficient.

While it is averred that Moon had a contract for the erection of a dwelling-house on a particularly described lot in the city of Decatur, and that the plaintiffs constructed the stone foundation under a contract with Moon, we look into the complaint in vain to ascertain who owned the lot upon which the house was erected, or with whom Moon contracted for the erection of a dwelling upon the lot described. It is quite true, it is averred that the plaintiffs notified Adams that they were about to perform and were performing the labor of constructing the foundation for contractor Moon, but as it does not appear...