Alvey v. Reed

• Decision Date: 12 June 1888
• Citation: 115 Ind. 148,17 N.E. 265
• Parties: Alvey v. Reed.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

115 Ind. 148

17 N.E. 265

Alvey

v.Reed.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 12, 1888.

Appeal from superior court, Vigo county; J. M. Allen, Judge.

Action to quiet title to land by Edward Reed, as guardian of Jessie Bowser, against John P. Alvey. Judgment for complainant, and defendant appeals.

I. N. Pierce, for appellant.

Elliott, J.

The appellee, as the guardian of Jessie Bowser, brought this action to quiet title to land owned by his ward. It is alleged in the complaint that the appellant erected a house on the land; that, at the time the house was built, Jessie Bowser was under the age of 21 years; that she was the wife of James B. Myers, from whom she has since been divorced; and that the house was built under a written contract executed by Myers and his then wife. The appellant filed a cross-complaint, wherein he alleged that at the time the contract was executed, and the house built, Jessie Myers appeared in size and development to be of full age; that she entered into a contract with the appellant to built a house on the land owned by her; that she agreed to pay him for building the house the sum of $1,640, and that she paid him $300, and for the remainder executed a note and mortgage; that, when the house was completed, Jessie Myers for the first time informed appellant that she was a minor, and declared that she would not pay the note and mortgage, but would repudiate them when she arrived of age; that thereupon the appellant filed notice of intention to hold a lien on the property; that she has wrongfully and forcibly taken possession of the house, and now has possession of it. The cross-complaint also avers that the improvement made by the appellant will increase the value of the property to the amount of $1,640, and that the work done and materials furnished by him are of the reasonable value of $1,640. It is further averred that at the time the contract was executed, and until after the house was completed, the appellant was ignorant that Jessie Myers was a minor, and that he believed that she was of full age. The complaint is good. A mechanic's lien cannot be acquired against the property of an infant. A lien implies a contract, and, as an infant cannot make a valid contract, no lien can be obtained against his property. Price v. Jennings, 62 Ind. 111; Phil. Mech. Liens, § 108. The case made by the cross-complaint is a hard one as against the appellant, but many cases, indeed almost all cases, where infants are concerned,...