Dugan Cut Stone Co. v. Gray

• Decision Date: 13 March 1893
• Citation: 114 Mo. 497,21 S.W. 854
• Parties: DUGAN CUT STONE CO. v. GRAY et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

21 S.W. 854

114 Mo. 497

DUGAN CUT STONE CO. v. GRAY et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 13, 1893.

MECHANICS' LIENS — FOR WHAT OBTAINED.

Stone purchased under one entire contract, and placed partly on the purchaser's lot and partly on the street adjoining it, in the construction of a sidewalk, is an improvement on the lot, within the meaning of the statute giving a lien for material used for making improvements on the purchaser's land.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; R. H. Field, Judge.

Action by the Dugan Cut Stone Company against George J. Gray and others to enforce a mechanic's lien. From a judgment of the circuit court in defendants' favor, plaintiff appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals, from which the case was transferred to the supreme court. Reversed.

Lathrop, Smith & Morrow, for appellant. Brown, Chapman & Brown, for respondent Daniels.

MACFARLANE, J.

This is a suit to enforce a mechanic's lien against a lot and building thereon for stone furnished for and used in the construction of a sidewalk laid partly upon the street adjoining the building, and partly upon the lot. The circuit court denied the right to a lien, and gave judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals, from which the case was transferred to this court. The requirements of the statutes necessary for securing the lien were all complied with, and the sole question is whether plaintiff is entitled to a lien upon the lot under the circumstances. The St. Louis court of appeals has held that a material man is entitled to a lien upon the adjoining lot for illuminating tiling placed over areas under a sidewalk for the purpose of lighting such areas, though such tiling extended into the street. Pullis v. Hoffman, 28 Mo. App. 666. In the recent case of McDermott v. Class, 15 S. W. Rep. 995, this court, approving the decision of Pullis v. Hoffman, held that the materials for a brick sidewalk, laid on the street adjacent to and along the building, and purchased under an entire contract for the construction of both the building and sidewalk, was lienable. It was held by the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts that a drain pipe, extending from the cellar of a house in a city through the cellar wall, yard, and street into a sewer, and included in the contract for building the house, which, if fitted for the use of the city water, is a part of the house, for the laying of which a lien, under the statutes, may be enforced; and it was immaterial that the fee of the street is not in the owner of the house. Beatty v. Parker, 141 Mass. 523, 6 N. E. Rep. 754. The...