Chapman-Stein Company v. Lippincott Glass Company
| Citation | 161 N.E. 645,87 Ind.App. 411 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | 12,980 |
| Parties | CHAPMAN-STEIN COMPANY v. LIPPINCOTT GLASS COMPANY ET AL |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
From Madison Superior Court; Lawrence V. Mays, Judge.
The Chapman-Stein Company filed an intervening petition in the receivership of the Lippincott Glass Company, asserting a claim against the latter company and its receivers for work of constructing four large tanks as a part of the company's glass plant and asking the foreclosure of a lien therefor. From an allowance of the claim as a general claim only and refusing claimant's right to a lien, it appeals.
Affirmed.
Henry C. Devin, Dee R. Jones and Diven, Diven & Campbell, for appellant.
Bagot Free & Pence, for appellees.
Appeal from a judgment rendered by the superior court of Madison county, December 31, 1926, upon the intervening petition of appellant filed in the receivership proceedings of appellee Lippincott Glass Company, in which appellant asserted a claim against said appellee and its receivers for $ 8,865, and that it had a valid mechanic's lien upon the real estate belonging to the company which it was entitled to have foreclosed. The court found that appellant was entitled to the allowance of its claim as a general claim only, and found against appellant in so far as the mechanic's lien was concerned, and rendered judgment accordingly.
The error assigned is the court's action in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, under which appellant presents only the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the court.
Appellee's summary of the evidence is unchallenged by appellant. It is substantially as follows: Appellant constructed, installed and fully completed in the factory of appellee company at Alexandria, Indiana, four recuperative day tanks pursuant to a contract therefor between said parties of February 12 1926, the first of said tanks being completed on April 2, the next one very shortly thereafter, and the last two on June 25, 1926. Each and all of said tanks were fully completed, delivered and accepted by the company as fully completed, and the company was instructed by appellant to fire said furnaces and tanks, which it did and used two of them in the manufacture of glass until receivers were appointed for it on July 21, 1927.
Invoices were rendered by appellant for said tanks, and $ 735 had been paid thereon when the receivers were ...
To continue reading
Request your trial