Deatherage v. Woods
| Decision Date | 09 July 1887 |
| Citation | 14 P. 474,37 Kan. 59 |
| Parties | CHARLES P. DEATHERAGE, et al., v. GEORGE A. WOODS, et al.--CHARLES P. DEATHERAGE, et al., v. ELI HENDERSON, et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Wabaunsee District Court.
ACTION brought by Charles P. Deatherage and William I. Ewart, under the firm-name of Deatherage & Ewart, against George A Woods and others, upon an account for lumber and building materials sold to Woods, and to enforce a mechanics' lien. The statement for the mechanics' lien, filed in the office of the clerk of the district court, on July 8, 1885 reads as follows:
For Deatherage & Ewart, Claimant.
The exhibits, A, B, C and D, are as stated. Trial before the court without a jury, on December 15, 1885. The plaintiffs offered to introduce in evidence this statement, with the exhibits thereto, but the defendants objected upon the following grounds, to wit:
"That said statement is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and does not contain the name of the owner of the property sought to be charged with plaintiffs' lien; that it was not signed; that it was not filed by the firm of Deatherage & Ewart; that it was filed by William I. Ewart in his individual capacity; and that it does not show that it was verified by the affidavit of said Ewart either as a partner or agent for said firm."
The court below sustained the objection, and excluded the evidence. Upon the evidence introduced, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Woods for the amount claimed, but rendered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs with regard to the mechanics' lien. The plaintiffs bring the case to this court.
Judgment reversed, and both cause remanded for further proceedings.
Botsford & Williams, for plaintiffs in error.
Hazen & Isenhart, for defendant in error Henderson.
OPINION
The only question involved in this case is, whether the plaintiffs' statement for a mechanics' lien is sufficient or not. The court below held that it is not.
I. It is claimed that the statement is not sufficient because it does not contain the name of the owner of the property sought to be charged with the plaintiffs' lien. We do not think that this claim is tenable. The statement shows, among other things, as follows:
This is certainly a sufficient statement of the name of the owner of the property. It is fully as definite as the statute itself is.
II. It is claimed that the statement is insufficient because it was not signed. Now the statute does not require that the statement shall be signed; and if the statement is otherwise sufficient, the signature is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co.
...only. I find no Kansas cases directly in point, but a few of our early decisions are illuminating and persuasive. In Deatherage v. Woods, 37 Kan. 59, 14 P. 474, the sufficiency of a verification was questioned, and in holding the lien to be properly verified, the court 'It is claimed, howev......
-
M & B Inv., Inc. v. Smith
...be signed, but only that it be verified by the claimant. Lumber Co. v. Osborn, 40 Kan. 168, 172, 19 P. 656 (1888); Deatherage v. Woods, 37 Kan. 59, 62, 14 P. 474 (1887). In short, K.S.A. 60-1102, as applied to subcontractors through K.S.A. 1982 Supp. 60-1103, requires a verified lien statem......
-
Pierce v. Osborn
...owner. This is and has been held a sufficient compliance with the statute in respect to setting out the name of the owner. ( Deatherage v. Woods, 37 Kan. 59.) That the Osborn was an owner within the meaning of the statute, and could subject his interest in the property to a lien, there is n......
-
Kellogg v. Matthews
...lien is as essential as the facts which must be incorporated in the statement itself. Hentig v. Sperry, 38 Kan. 461. See, also, Deatherage v. Woods, 37 Kan. 59; v. Eberhardt, 37 id. 308. On the third point, we claim that what was proven with reference to what was contained in the statements......