Edgar v. Salisbury
| Decision Date | 31 October 1852 |
| Citation | 17 Mo. 271 |
| Parties | EDGAR, Plaintiff in Error, v. SALISBURY et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where in a demand filed by a person seeking to avail himself of the benefit of the act concerning mechanics' liens, services for which he might have a lien are combined with other charges for which no lien is given, and the whole summed up in one item, so that it is impossible to ascertain from the account filed how much of the gross charge is a lien, the party will lose the whole benefit of the act.
2. An agent employed to disburse money and pay off hands in the building of a house, has no lien for his services.
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.
Glover & Campbell, for plaintiff in error. The matters mentioned in the account and made a part of the scire facias, were, in every particular, the proper subjects of a lien under our statute concerning mechanics' liens. R. C. 1845, p. 733. It is not necessary that the work should be done literally on the building. Plans, drawings, specifications, making contracts with workmen, material men, and the superintendence and direction of the building, are all within the spirit and meaning of the statute.
C. C. Carroll, for defendant in error. The mechanics' lien law was only intended to protect the manual laborer and the material men, who, from their humble position and general lack of knowledge, were liable to be imposed upon by contractors. It is a special statute, and must be construed strictly. To allow such a bill as this to constitute a lien would be to create a lien upon a house, before it is in existence, or the ground broken for its commencement. The contract set out in the bill of items is an entirety, and cannot be separated.
Edgar sued out a scire facias from the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, to enforce a lien upon a building which had been erected for the defendants in that county. The particulars of the demand consisted of a single charge, in these words: “To making two sets of plans and detail drawings for all the buildings of the Lowell hemp works, also specifications for the same; also for making all the contracts with the workmen, furnishers of materials, superintending and directing the entire construction of the buildings, disbursing moneys, &c., &c., &c., as per agreement, $500.” On this there was a credit of $148.23. The scire facias recited the demand as filed, and there was a demurrer to it, which was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff appealed.
1. The only question presented is,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moller-Vandenboom Lbr. Co. v. Boudreau
...in an account is fatal to the validity of the lien if the lienable items cannot readily be separated from the nonlienable items. Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 Mo. 271; Boiler Works Co. v. Haydock, 59 Mo. App. 653, 659-660 (q). (18) Through their inclusion in the account as filed in the lien claim ......
-
Moller-Vandenboom Lumber Co. v. Boudreau
... ... the lien if the lienable items cannot readily be separated ... from the nonlienable items. Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 ... Mo. 271; Boiler Works Co. v. Haydock, 59 Mo.App ... 653, 659-660 (q). (18) Through their inclusion in the account ... as ... ...
-
Schroeter Bros. Hardware Co. v. Croatian Sokol'' Gymnastic Ass'n
...v. Krebs, 196 Mo.App. 432; Planing Mill Co. v. Allison, 71 Mo.App. 258; Cahil, Collins & Co. v. Orphans' School, 63 Mo.App. 33; Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 Mo. 271; Livermore v. Wright, 33 Mo. 31; Floreth McReynolds, 205 Mo.App. 143; Darlington Lumber Co. v. Harris, 107 Mo.App. 148; Gauss v. Hus......
-
Allen Estate Association v. Fred Boeke & Son
...that they cannot be segregated, the whole liens of all the respondents must fall. Boiler Works Co. v. Haydock, 59 Mo.App. 660; Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 Mo. 271; Murphy v. Murphy, 222 Mo.App. 18; Dugan Stone Co. v. Gray, 43 Mo.App. 671; Badger Lumber Co. v. Knights of Pythias, 157 Mo. 366; Kir......