Dimmick v. Hinckley
| Decision Date | 07 December 1881 |
| Citation | 57 Iowa 757,10 N.W. 638 |
| Parties | DIMMICK v. HINCKLEY. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Johnson circuit court.
On rehearing.
Counsel for appellant, in a petition for rehearing, insist that the question in this case is different from that involved in Squier v. Parks, 9 N. W. REP. 324, because in that case the contest was between the holder of the mechanic's lien and a mortgagee of the owner of the land, while in this case the controversy is between the holder of the mechanic's lien and the owner of the land. Counsel say they want a construction of section 2123 of the Code, or rather that part of it which provides that a failure or omission to file the lien within the time fixed shall not defeat the lien “except against purchasers or encumbrancers in good faith, without notice, whose rights accrued after the 30 or 90 days, as the case may be, and before any claim for a lien was filed.” If a little attention had been given to the statement of facts in the case of Squier v. Parks, it would have been seen that while it is true the plaintiffs in that case were mortgagees, their mortgage was executed before the material was furnished which was the basis of the mechanic's lien. They were, therefore, not within the exception of the statute, and, so far as the question of the statute of limitations was involved, their rights were under the statute precisely the same as the rights of the owner. It is correct, the facts in the two cases are not the same, but the principle involved is the same. The cases were considered together in consultation, and disposed of at the same time and in the same way, because they were in principle the same.
The former opinion is adhered to, and the petition for rehearing must be overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G. J. Stewart & Co. v. Whicher
...in the law relative to mechanics' liens. See Squier v. Parks, 56 Iowa, 407, 9 N. W. 324; Dimmick v. Hinkley, 57 Iowa, 757, 9 N. W. 386, 10 N. W. 638; Johnson v. Otto, 105 Iowa, 607, 75 N. W. 492. The first count of the petition was barred by the statute of limitations, and the court erred i......
-
G.J. Stewart & Co. v. Whicher
...for filing the claim as provided in the law relative to mechanics' liens. See Squier v. Parks, 56 Iowa 407, 9 N.W. 324; Dimmick v. Hinckley, 57 Iowa 757, 10 N.W. 638; Johnson v. Otto, 105 Iowa 605, 607, 75 N.W. 492. first count of the petition was barred by the statute of limitations and th......
- Roby v. Hall
- Dimmick v. Hinkley