First Presbyterian Church of Hutchinson v. L.P. Santy & Co.

Decision Date09 December 1893
Citation52 Kan. 462,34 P. 974
CourtKansas Supreme Court
PartiesTHE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF HUTCHINSON v. L. P. SANTY & CO. et al

Error from Reno District Court.

ACTION by the Hutchinson Hardware Company against the First Presbyterian Church of Hutchinson and others to enforce a mechanic's lien. From the judgment rendered at the March term, 1889, the defendant church brings the case to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Whiteside & Gleason, for plaintiff in error.

F. F Prigg, for defendant in error the Hutchinson Hardware Company.

W. H Crawford, for defendants in error L. P. Santy & Co. and Swift, Mankoff & Congdon.

ALLEN J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

ALLEN, J.:

The Hutchinson Hardware Company brought suit against the First Presbyterian Church to foreclose a mechanic's lien, making other persons, who also claimed liens, parties defendant. Thompson, Hanna & Co. erected a church building as contractors for plaintiff in error. The Hutchinson Hardware Company furnished hardware to Thompson, Hanna & Co. under a subcontract. Santy & Co. furnished stone. Swift, Mankoff & Congdon furnished galvanized iron cornice. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of each of the subcontractors before named.

The principal complaint made by the plaintiff in error is, that the statements were not filed by the subcontractors within 60 days after the completion of the church. It is strenuously contended that the trustees of the church inspected it in company with the original contractor on the 20th day of February, and accepted the work as completed; that the date of completion is fixed by that action of the parties; that the record shows that the work was taken off the hands of the contractors on the 21st day of February, 1888; that inasmuch as the statements were not filed within 60 days from that time, they were too late, and the subcontractors' liens were lost. There was evidence showing an inspection of the building by a majority of the trustees at the date named, and that the trustees present expressed their willingness to accept the church as it then was, though it was then claimed by the trustees that there were some little things not just as they should have been. On the other hand, there was evidence showing that work was done by various parties on the building thereafter. The last work performed under the original contract shown by the testimony was a little painting by the witness Barnes, who was employed by Rice & Morehouse, subcontractors for the painting. Barnes testified that the last work was done on or about the 4th of April. Some work had been done fixing doors and the ironwork on the ridgepole between the time when it is claimed the church was accepted as completed and the 4th of April. The trial court found that the building was completed after the 1st and before the 7th day of April, 1888. All the statements were filed within 60 days after the 1st of April, and were held to have been filed in time. The question as to the time of the completion of the church building is a question of fact. The trial court has found in favor of the parties claiming liens. This finding is supported by competent evidence, and is therefore conclusive of the question.

In the statement filed by the Hutchinson Hardware Company, the trustees are named as the owners of the building, and George E. Thompson, one of the contractors, alone is named as the contractor. It is urged that this is insufficient; that the church corporation should have been named as the owner, and the firm name of Thompson, Hanna & Co. should have been given as the contractors. Section 3, article 12, of the constitution, reads: "The title to all property of religious corporations shall vest in trustees, whose election shall be by the members of such corporation." In the statement, five persons are named as trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Hutchinson. As the legal title to the property, under the constitutional provision, is vested in the trustees, and, as they were named, not as individuals but as trustees of the church corporation, the statement is clearly sufficient in that respect. George Thompson, one of the firm of Thompson, Hanna & Co., is alone named as the contractor. It appears that the materials furnished by the hardware company were in fact sold and charged to Thompson, but were so sold to be used in the erection of the church building, and the items...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Eberle v. Drennan
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1912
    ...husband, acting merely as the agent of his wife, the notice was sufficient. The Supreme Court of Kansas (First Presbyterian Church of Hutchinson v. Santy et al., 52 Kan. 462, 34 P. 974) passed upon the same question in a case somewhat similar to the case at bar. In that case the materials w......
  • Eberle v. Drennan
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1912
    ... ... first a personal judgment against the original ... Supreme Court of Kansas ( First Presbyterian Church of ... Hutchinson v. Santy et al., 52 ... ...
  • Allison v. Schuler
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • October 1, 1934
    ...v. Culver, 51 Conn. 177 (referred to in the reported case); St. Louis Nat. Stock Yards v. O'Reilly, 85 Ill. 546; Hutchinson First Presb. Church v. Santy, 52 Kan. 462, 34 P. 974; General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Schwartz Bros. Commission Co., 165 Mo. 171, 65 S. W. 318. And see the reported c......
  • The Badger Lumber and Coal Co. v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1926
    ... ... (Gen. Stat ... 1909, § 9850; Presbyterian Church v. Santy, 52 ... Kan. 462, 34 P. 974; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT