Case Mfg. Co. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 01 April 1889 |
| Citation | 40 F. 339 |
| Parties | CASE MANUF'G CO. v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
C. R Head and Morris & Anderson, for complainant.
Vertrees & Vertrees, for defendants.
The bill in this case seeks to have declared and enforced a mechanic's lien on and against certain mill property in Gallatin, Tenn., for the purpose of compelling payment for certain mill machinery and improvements made and placed upon said property by complainant under special contract with the defendants, or the owners thereof. After setting out the contract under which the machinery was furnished and the improvements made, the bill states that complainant retained the title to the machinery until the same was fully paid for and reserved the right, in the event defendants made default in payment, to take possession of and remove the same without legal process. It was further stated that certain parties had a vendor's lien on the property or mill lot to secure the balance of purchase money due thereon, and that another party held a mortgage upon the premises. The persons holding said vendor's lien and mortgage are not made parties to the suit. The defendants demur to the bill, alleging, as grounds of demurrer, that complainant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law; that any mechanic's lien which it might have had upon the described premises was waived by retaining the title to the machinery furnished; and that the persons having and holding the express vendor's lien upon the property, together with the holder of the mortgage thereon, were necessary parties to the suit.
It is not alleged in the bill that complainant gave any notice to the holders of the vendor's lien and mortgage, as provided by law, (sections 2742, 2743, Mill. & V. Code,) so as to assert any priority of right over said liens, nor does the bill claim any lien or right prior to said vendor's and mortgagee's liens. The holders of these liens might have been made parties to the suit. They would not have been improper parties, but they are not necessary or indispensable parties. Whatever rights complainant may be able to assert and enforce against the particular premises will be in subordination to their liens. Complainant, under the present form and scope of its bill, can only subject the interests which defendants have in and to the property, without prejudice to the rights of those holding the vendor's and mortgagee's liens.
The last ground of demurrer cannot, therefore, be sustained. The relief sought by complainant does not involve the rights of the absent lien claimants.
The material question raised by the first and second grounds of the demurrer is this: Did the retention of title to the machinery until the same was fully paid for, with the right reserved, in case of default in making payment on the part of defendants, to take possession and remove said machinery without legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenbaum v. Hayes
... ... Newton, for ... appellants ... This ... case has been twice before the court. Rosenbaum v ... Hayes, 5 N.D. 476; Rosenbaum v. Hayes, 8 ... Sunday law. § § 6241, 6242, 6245, Comp. Laws; ... Smith v. Wilcox, 24 N.Y. 353; Link v ... Clemens, 7 Blackf. 479; Reynolds v. Stevenson, ... 4 ... ...
-
Hooven, Owens & Rentschler Co. v. John Featherstone's Sons
... ... 82] ... with the rules of that method of review applicable to the ... nature of the case ... A suit ... to enforce and forclose a mechanic's lien is a suit in ... equity, and ... from Hohorst v. Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 13 Sup.Ct ... 590, 37 L.Ed. 443; Bank v. Smith, 156 U.S. 330, 15 ... Sup.Ct. 358, 39 L.Ed. 441; Baker v. Bank, 91 F. 449, ... 33 C.C.A. 570; ... upon it. Linden Steel Co. v. Rough Run Mfg. Co., 158 ... Pa. 238, 27 A. 895; Smith v. Newbaur, 144 Ind. 95, ... 42 N.E. 40, 1094, 33 ... ...
-
Parsons v. Foster
...mechanics to enforce their alleged lien is void as to the appellant, because he was not made a party thereto. Case Manufacturing Co. v. Smith et al., 40 F. 339, 5 R. A. 231; Continental & Commercial Trust & Saving Bank et al. v. Corey Bros. Const. Co. et al., 208 F. 976; Portues v. Badenoch......
-
Mizell Live Stock Co. v. J.J. Mccaskill Co.
... ... retention of title in [59 Fla. 324] said mules by the ... plaintiff in this case. Of course, we expect to connect it ... later with the mules.' ... The ... defendant ... parties made a rather hard bargain would not avoid the ... contract. Scotch Mfg. Co. v. Carr, 53 Fla. 480, 43 ... So. 427; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 ... Fla ... General Electric Co. v. Norris, 100 Mich. 496, 59 N.W ... 151; Case Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 40 F. 339, 5 L. R. A ... 231; Seanor v. McLaughlin, 165 Pa. 150, 30 A. 717, ... 32 L. R. A ... ...