Bradish v. James
Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
Citation | 83 Mo. 313 |
Parties | BRADISH v. JAMES, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court.--HON. V. B. HILL, Judge.
REVERSED.
Smith & Krauthoff for appellant.
(1) The tract against which the lien is sought to be enforced being over one acre in extent, the judgment is contrary to law and cannot stand. Engleman v. Graves, 46 Mo. 348; Williams v. Porter, 51 Mo. 441; Wright v. Beardsley, 69 Mo. 548; Ranson v. Sheehan, 78 Mo. 668. (2) The defendant pleaded payment in the answer and no reply was filed, and the judgment is erroneous for that reason. R. S., secs. 3524, 3525, 3545. The defendant did not waive the objection, as it objected to evidence offered by plaintiff to disprove the plea of payment. It is now too late to file a reply. Ladd v. Couzins, 35 Mo. 513. (3) The petition was fatally defective in not stating the date of filing the lien. Gault v. Soldani, 34 Mo. 150; Heltzell v. Langford, 33 Mo. 396. (4) The plaintiff was not entitled to recover on the evidence. No contract for the work was shown and plaintiff, therefore, did not have a lien. Hause v. Thompson, 36 Mo. 450; Hause v. Carroll, 37 Mo. 578; Porter v. Tooke, 35 Mo. 107. (5) There was no evidence that the plaintiff had taken the requisite steps under the statute to secure a lien. No proof was offered of the filing of the account, although the allegations of the petition on the subject were put in issue by the answer, nor is there anything to show that this action was commenced within ninety days after the filing of the account, if one was filed. These were necessary to be shown to entitle the plaintiff to a lien, and in the absence of proof of them there could be no recovery. Gault v. Soldani, 34 Mo. 150; Heltzell v. Langford, 33 Mo. 396; Lee v. Chambers, 13 Mo. 238; Mulloy v. Lawrence, 31 Mo. 583; Williams v. Porter, 51 Mo. 441, 442; Hall v. Johnson, 57 Mo. 221.
C. C. Bland for respondent.
This suit was commenced on the 28th day of February, 1879, by filing the following petition: etc.
The defendant answered by guardian, ad litem, in which the indebtedness on any account is denied. Denies that the account accrued on account of labor performed or material furnished at her request or at the request of any one by her authorized to make such request or contract, and alleges that she has no knowledge, etc., as to whether plaintiff had filed his alleged mechanic's lien, etc., and demanded proof.
I. The first question for consideration is the sufficiency of the petition. It is urged by the appellant that the petition does not contain the necessary allegations to constitute a cause of action. There being no appearance here on the part of the respondent the court is left in the dark as to his position. Sec. 3176, Rev. Stat., 1879, provides that every original contractor, seeking to obtain the benefits of a mechanic's lien, shall “within six months * * * after his indebtedness shall have accrued, file with the clerk of the circuit court of the proper county a just and true account of the demand due him * * * * after all just credits have been given, which is to be a lien upon such building or other improvements, and a true description of the property, or so near as to identify the same, upon which the lien is intended to apply, with the name of the owner or contractor, or both if known to the person filing the lien, which shall in all cases be verified by the oath of himself or some credible person for him.” The last clause of sec. 3179, Rev. Stat., 1879, provides as follows: “The petition, among other things, shall allege the facts necessary for securing a lien under this artiele and shall contain a description of the property charged therewith.” Section 3187, Rev. Stat., 1879, provides that: “All actions under this article shall be commenced within ninety days after filing the lien.”
The petition alleges that within six months from the date of furnishing the materials and performing the labor he filed his statement and account, etc., but it fails to state the date of the last item of the account or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schulenburg v. Hayden
... ... suit. Clemens v. Murphy, 40 Mo. 121; Spurlock v ... Railroad, 76 Mo. 67; State ex rel. v. James, 82 ... Mo. 509; Nelson v. Barnett, 123 Mo. 571; Short ... v. Taylor, 137 Mo. 562; Baker v. Lowe, 137 Mo ... 688; Eastman v. Cooper, 15 Pick ... attachment, and involved no question of priorities under the ... mechanic's lien law. Bradish v. James, 83 Mo ... 313, was a mechanic's lien suit, but involved no question ... of priorities. In Coe v. Ritter, 86 Mo. 277, the ... trustee ... ...
-
Hertel Elec. Co. v. Gabriel, 7452
...to enable one familiar with the locality to identify the premises intended to be covered by the lien, it will be sufficient.' Bradish v. James, 83 Mo. 313, 318(2); Rall Bros. v. McCrary, 45 Mo.App. 365, 370-371(2). However, such indulgent pronouncements with respect to inaccurate, loose or ......
-
Hooven, Owens & Rentschler Co. v. John Featherstone's Sons
... ... property on which the lien is claimed with reasonable ... certainty, is sufficient to sustain it. De Witt v ... Smith, 63 Mo. 263; Bradish v. James, 83 Mo ... 313, 318; Drexel v. Richards (Neb.) 70 N.W. 23, 24 ... When the entire description in the claim is fairly read and ... ...
-
Powers And Boyd Cornice & Roofing Co. v. Muir
...to what the lien was intended to apply. The Oster case was again specifically affirmed on this proposition in the case of Bradish v. James, 83 Mo. 313. Hammond v. Darlington, 109 Mo.App. 333, 84 S.W. 446, which was for property in the city of St. Louis, but the property not divided into lot......