Bridwell v. Clark

Decision Date31 October 1866
Citation39 Mo. 170
PartiesRICHARD F. BRIDWELL, Plaintiff in Error, v. HENRY L. CLARK, et als., Defendants in Error.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Error to St. Louis Land Court.

C. C. McLure, for plaintiff in error.

By the provisions of the mechanic's lien law for St. Louis county every mechanic who performs work or furnishes materials shall have a lien on the improvement for the work done and materials furnished and the ground on which the building is erected; and it matters not by whom he was employed to do such work and furnish the materials--Sess. Acts 1856-7, p. 668, § 1. This lien is preferred to all others subsequent to commencing the work--Id. p. 669, § 5.

Whether or not Lucas & Hunt's deeds of trust on the ground upon which the houses were built by plaintiff Bridwell are to be preferred to the mechanic's lien on the ground, yet there can be no doubt as to the mechanic's lien on the buildings alone; for the law intended to protect the mechanic who did the work and furnished the materials for the work done, &c., independent of the owner of the ground. If it were otherwise, why does the 1st section of the act referred to protect the builder in his lien on the buildings even when employed by any person who may not own the ground, or even have an interest in it?

It is plain that the mechanic's lien is protected on the improvements, at least by § 20. Where the improvements are erected on leasehold property, and the lessee fails to protect his lease, and the lessor comes into possession, the mechanic's lien holds the improvements, and the builder may recover the same--Sess. Acts 1856-7, p. 668, § 2. This principle applies in this case-- Gillespie v. Bradford, 7 Yerg. 168.

The execution to support the lien is a special fieri facias, and may be levied on the real or personal property subject to its payment, or on the improvements as in this case--p. 670, § 14. The sales under Clark's deeds of trust to Lucas & Hunt's trustees make no change in plaintiff's rights; the sales were made after suit was commenced and after plaintiff's lien had attached.

Glover & Shepley, for defendants in error.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff commenced his suit in the St. Louis Land Court against the defendants to enforce a mechanic's lien on certain property situated on Olive street. It appears that James H. Lucas and Ann L. Hunt conveyed to the defendant Clark a piece of ground on which the buildings were erected, for the purpose of having buildings constructed thereon, and that Clark made and executed his deed of trust to Henry L. Turner and John E. Yore as trustees to secure the payment of part of the purchase money. The first deed was acknowledged on the 16th of December, 1859; the deed of trust was acknowledged on the 22d of the same month, and both deeds were admitted to record on the same day.

On the 20th of December, 1859, Clark contracted with the plaintiff to furnish materials and build ten three-story brick houses, on the ground purchased, for the sum of $40,000; but the work on the ground was not actually commenced till in March succeeding. Plaintiff completed the building of the houses according to contract; Clark failed to make payment for part of the purchase money, and became insolvent.

Plaintiff filed his lien on the property under the mechanics' lien law, and duly prosecuted his suit for judgment to foreclose his lien. Subsequent to the commencement of the suit, Lucas & Hunt had the lots sold under the deed of trust to pay the balance of the purchase money due from Clark to them, and the property was purchased by several individuals, who were made defendants by an amended petition.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Schroeter Bros. Hardware Co. v. Croatian Sokol'' Gymnastic Ass'n
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Marzo 1933
    ...(1) The Duchon deed of trust was given for part purchase money and was entitled to priority over said mechanic's liens. Birdwell v. Clark, 39 Mo. 170; Russell v. Grant, 122 Mo. 161; Wilson v. Lubke, 176 Mo. 210. (2) The deed of trust of February 20, 1926, was prior in date and recordation t......
  • Horton v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1884
    ...contractor or mechanic cannot claim any greater estate or title in the premises than the person possesses under whom he claims. Bridwell v. Clark, 39 Mo. 170. The action of trover will not lie for the conversion of real property, or that which in law formed a part of the realty. Gibbs v. Es......
  • Lyvers v. Rutherford
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 22 Marzo 1935
    ... ... c. 284. (6) A ... purchase-money deed of trust is superior to a lien arising ... out of a contract made by the purchaser. Bridewell v ... Clark, 39 Mo. 170, l. c. 173; Russell v. Grant, ... 122 Mo. 161, Syll. 2, l. c. 177; Steininger v ... Raeman, 28 Mo.App. 594, Syll. 3; Wilson v ... ...
  • Winslow Brothers Company v. McCully Stone Mason Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Junio 1902
    ...instructions asked by the appellants. R. S. 1899, sec. 4203; Squires v. Fithian, 27 Mo. 134; Porter v. Tooke, 35 Mo. 107; Bridewell v. Clark, 39 Mo. 170; Crandall Cooper, 62 Mo. 478; Schulenburg v. Hayden, 146 Mo. 583; Kline v. Perry, 51 Mo.App. 422; Garnett v. Berry, 3 Mo.App. 197; Hughes ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT