Chicago Lumber Co. v. Woods & Son
| Decision Date | 26 April 1880 |
| Citation | 5 N.W. 715,53 Iowa 552 |
| Parties | CHICAGO LUMBER COMPANY v. WOODS & SON ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.
ACTION upon an account for lumber sold to the defendants H. N. Woods & Son, and to establish a mechanic's lien upon certain property belonging to the defendant The State Insurance Company. Judgment was rendered against Woods & Son for the amount claimed, to wit: $ 1,077.62, but a mechanic's lien was allowed for only $ 677.62. The plaintiff appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Charles A. Finkbine, for appellant.
Brown & Dudley and Holmes & Nottingham, for appellees.
The defendants H. N. Woods & Son are builders, and as such they entered into a contract to build, and did build, a three story brick building for the defendant The State Insurance Company. For the construction of the building, Woods & Son purchased lumber upon credit of the plaintiff. Woods & Son at the same time were engaged in erecting a building for one King, and they purchased lumber upon credit of the plaintiff for the construction of the King building. The plaintiff kept two accounts with Woods & Son, the one being for lumber sold for the construction of the insurance company building, and the other for lumber sold for the construction of the King building. On the 20th of August, 1878, and while the two accounts for lumber stood upon the plaintiff's books Woods & Son made a payment of $ 400, which was applied upon the account for lumber sold for the construction of the insurance company building. A few days later the credit was taken from that account, and applied to the account for lumber sold for the construction of the King building. The court held that the insurance company was entitled to the benefit of the credit, notwithstanding the transfer of the same to the other account. The correctness of this ruling constitutes the only question in the case.
The ruling we assume was based upon the idea that by the payment the lien upon the insurance company's property was, to that extent, discharged, and that when once discharged it was not within the power of plaintiff and Woods & Son to revive it.
This we think must be the correct view, unless the payment, the insurance company not being a party to it, should be deemed absolute only as extinguishing so much of Woods & Son's indebtedness, and provisional in respect to the application, or unless the application was made by...
To continue reading
Request your trial