Coenen v. Staub

• Decision Date: 08 March 1888
• Parties: COENEN ET AL. v. STAUB ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

74 Iowa 32

36 N.W. 877

COENEN ET AL.

v.STAUB ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 8, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Shelby county; A. B. THORNELL, Judge.

Action on account for building materials and for the foreclosure of a mechanics' lien, by Coenen & Mentzer, against Mary Staub and Lewis Gingery. The materials were furnished under a contract between plaintiffs and defendant Mary Staub, and were used in the construction of a sidewalk on the street in front of a lot owned by her in the town of Harlan. Defendant Lewis Gingery is a subsequent purchaser of the lot. The district court gave plaintiffs judgment against defendant Mary Staub, for the amount due on the account, but refused to establish the lien prayed for. Plaintiffs appealed.Beard & Myerly, for appellants.

Fremont Benjamin, for appellees.

REED, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

Plaintiffs seek to enforce a lien for the materials against the lot in front of which the sidewalk was constructed, and the only question in the case is whether they are entitled to that remedy. The statute under which the remedy is claimed (Code, § 2130) is as follows: “Every mechanic or other person who shall do any labor upon or furnish any material, machinery, or fixtures for any building, erection, or other improvement upon land, including those engaged in the construction or repair of any work of internal improvement, by virtue of any contract with the owner, his agent, trustee, contractor, or subcontractor, upon complying with the provisions of this chapter shall have, for his labor done, or materials, machinery, or fixtures furnished, a lien upon such building, erection, or improvement, and upon the land belonging to such owner on which the same is situated, to secure the payment of such labor done, or materials, machinery, or fixtures furnished.” Under this provision, the lien attaches to the building, erection, or improvement, and to the land upon which it is situated. The sidewalk is not situated upon the lot sought to be charged, but in the street on which it fronts. It is not an improvement upon or of the lot, nor was it made for the benefit of the owner, but of the public, and was constructed by the owner, as we presume, in obedience to some requirement of the town government. Under provisions of the statute many street improvements in incorporated towns and cities may be made at the cost of the owners of the abutting property. Streets may be reduced or filled to grade and...