DeMund Lumber Company v. Franke, Civil 3225
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | LOCKWOOD, J. |
| Citation | 40 Ariz. 461,14 P.2d 256 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 1932 |
| Docket Number | Civil 3225 |
| Parties | DeMund LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. A. FRANKE, PETER TONELLI, JULIA ARIGONI TONELLI, His Wife, GEORGE W. CYPERT and K. WILFONG, Appellees |
14 P.2d 256
40 Ariz. 461
DeMund LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant,
v.
J. A. FRANKE, PETER TONELLI, JULIA ARIGONI TONELLI, His Wife, GEORGE W. CYPERT and K. WILFONG, Appellees
Civil No. 3225
Supreme Court of Arizona
September 17, 1932
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. Fred L. Ingraham, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Mr. R. C. Bennett, for Appellant.
Mr. J. Fred Hoover, for Appellees.
OPINION
[40 Ariz. 462] LOCKWOOD, J.
DeMund Lumber Company, a corporation, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against J. A. Franke, Peter Tonelli, Julia Arigoni Tonelli, his wife, George W. Cypert and K. Wilfong to enforce a mechanic's lien for materials furnished for the erection of a building upon a lot owned by the Tonellis. Cypert and Wilfong were made defendants for the reason that they also had filed mechanics' liens on the same property. Defendant Franke was never served with process and did not appear. The case was heard before the court sitting without a jury and judgment rendered to the effect that the property of the defendants Tonelli was not liable for any of the liens set up, and the case was dismissed as to them, but continued as to defendant Franke until service could be made upon him. From the order overruling the usual motion for new trial and the judgment, plaintiff has appealed.
In order to make the situation more plain, it is necessary that we consider to some extent the evidence [40 Ariz. 463] in the case. This taken in the strongest manner on behalf of defendants Tonelli, as under our familiar rule we must take it, shows as follows: Tonelli and his wife were the owners of the premises against which the lien was filed. On April 1st, 1930, they leased such premises to defendant Franke with an option to purchase the property at any time within two years from the date of the lease. Franke went into possession and commenced the construction of a building thereon, arranging with Cypert to furnish the bulk of the labor and act as foreman on the job, and with plaintiff herein to furnish the material. Defendants Tonelli at no time had anything to do with these arrangements, or indeed with the premises themselves in any manner after the execution of the lease, nor did they ever at any time authorize Franke or any other person to construct the building or secure labor and material therefor. It is true there is direct and positive evidence in the record from which the trial judge could have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, Nos. 1 CA–CV 11–0387
...a balance in protecting both Laborers and landlord-owners. Id. at 108, 110–11, 449 P.2d at 36, 38–39 (citing Demund Lumber Co. v. Franke, 40 Ariz. 461, 14 P.2d 256 (1932)). In Demund Lumber, the supreme court held in pertinent part as follows: It is undoubtedly the law in Arizona that only ......
-
Red Mountain Machinery Co. v. Grace Inv. Co., No. 92-16825
...lien against a lessee's interest in the underlying property. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 33-981 (1990); Demund Lumber Co. v. Franke, 40 Ariz. 461, 14 P.2d 256 (1932) (noting that where an owner of property has leased land to a developer, a party that furnishes material to the lessee may have a ......
-
Hayward Lumber & Inv. Co. v. Graham, No. 7905
...were at the instance of the lessee, only the lessees interests could be used to satisfy the mechanics' liens. Demund Lumber Co. v. Franke, 40 Ariz. 461, 14 P.2d 256 The trial court denied the liens against both the improvements and the realty. The trial court seems to have been guided by th......
-
Leggett v. Wardenburg, Civil 4033
...its judgment. Blackford v. Neaves, 23 Ariz. 501, 205 P. 587; Ollason v. Glasscock, 26 Ariz. 193, 224 P. 284; DeMund Lumber Co. v. Franke, 40 Ariz. 461, 14 P.2d 256; Concrete Mach. & Sup. Co. v. Waara, 42 Ariz. 512, 27 P.2d 682. And if sufficient evidence appears in the record to support the......
-
Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, Nos. 1 CA–CV 11–0387
...a balance in protecting both Laborers and landlord-owners. Id. at 108, 110–11, 449 P.2d at 36, 38–39 (citing Demund Lumber Co. v. Franke, 40 Ariz. 461, 14 P.2d 256 (1932)). In Demund Lumber, the supreme court held in pertinent part as follows: It is undoubtedly the law in Arizona that only ......
-
Hayward Lumber & Inv. Co. v. Graham, No. 7905
...were at the instance of the lessee, only the lessees interests could be used to satisfy the mechanics' liens. Demund Lumber Co. v. Franke, 40 Ariz. 461, 14 P.2d 256 The trial court denied the liens against both the improvements and the realty. The trial court seems to have been guided by th......
-
Red Mountain Machinery Co. v. Grace Inv. Co., No. 92-16825
...lien against a lessee's interest in the underlying property. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. Sec. 33-981 (1990); Demund Lumber Co. v. Franke, 40 Ariz. 461, 14 P.2d 256 (1932) (noting that where an owner of property has leased land to a developer, a party that furnishes material to the lessee may have a ......
-
Leggett v. Wardenburg, Civil 4033
...its judgment. Blackford v. Neaves, 23 Ariz. 501, 205 P. 587; Ollason v. Glasscock, 26 Ariz. 193, 224 P. 284; DeMund Lumber Co. v. Franke, 40 Ariz. 461, 14 P.2d 256; Concrete Mach. & Sup. Co. v. Waara, 42 Ariz. 512, 27 P.2d 682. And if sufficient evidence appears in the record to support the......