Greenleaf v. Beebe
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 1875 WL 8788,80 Ill. 520 |
| Parties | WILLIAM L. GREENLEAF et al.v.HENRY T. BEEBE et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding. Mr. JAMES S. MURRAY, for the appellants.
Messrs. WOOD & LOOMIS, for the appellees.
This was a petition, brought by appellees, to enforce a mechanic's lien for labor and materials furnished in the erection of certain buildings on premises owned by Fannie E. Greenleaf, wife of William L. Greenleaf.
To the original petition a demurrer was interposed, which the court sustained. An amended petition having been filed, the appellants again demurred, but the court overruled the demurrer, and, in default of an answer, the court on the hearing entered a decree as prayed for in the amended petition.
Two alleged errors are relied upon, by appellants, to reverse the decree.
First--That the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the amended petition.
Second--That a joint decree against appellants was improper.
It is alleged, in the petition, that Fannie E. Greenleaf was the owner of the premises upon which the lien is sought to be established; that she was the wife of William L. Greenleaf, and that the said William L., husband of Fannie E., entered into a written contract with appellees, which is set out in hæc verba in the petition, and which was executed by appellees and William L. Greenleaf under seal.
It is claimed, by appellants, that an attempt is made to charge Fannie E. Greenleaf, and make her a party to a contract under seal which she did not execute, by extrinsic evidence.
As we understand the record, that question does not arise. There is no controversy over the original contract, as the work provided for under it has been fully performed, and paid for. It was, therefore, of no importance to inquire whether Fannie E. could be made liable on that contract by resorting to extrinsic evidence. The purpose of the petition was to recover for extra labor and materials furnished under a parol contract, entered into subsequently to the making of the original written contract, so that the authorities cited by appellants have no application.
The question presented by the amended petition is, whether the allegations are sufficient to establish a cause of action against the owner of the premises, Fannie E. Greenleaf, for materials furnished and labor performed, under a parol agreement made with her husband, subsequent to the written contract.
It is alleged, in the petition, that William L. Greenleaf was acting as the agent of and for and in behalf of Fannie E. Greenleaf, with her full...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boutell v. Shellaberger
...360; Shane v. Lyons, 172 Mass. 199; Walker v. Swayze, 3 Abb. Pr. 136; Hinds v. Jones, 48 Me. 349; Martin v. Robson, 65 Ill. 137; Greenlief v. Beebe, 80 Ill. 520; Madden Gilmer, 40 Ala. 637; Mahoon v. Colment, 51 Miss. 60; Bacon v. Bevan, 44 Miss. 293; Harvey v. Johnson, 133 N.C. 352; Pomero......
-
Bayard v. Mcgraw
...al. v. Cook, 1 Gilm. 423; Kelly et al. v. Chapman, 13 Ill. 530; Steigleman v. McBride, 17 Ill. 300; Lomax v. Dore, 45 Ill. 379; Greenleaf v. Beebe, 80 Ill. 520. The cestui que trust cannot be bound by the decree by reason of his trustee being made a party defendant: Hall et al. v. Sullivan ......
-
Thompson v. Scott
...be enforced in equity. See Carpenter v. Mitchell, 54 Ill. 126; Martin v. Robson, 65 Ill. 129; Parent v. Callerand, 64 Ill. 97; Greenleaf v. Beebe, 80 Ill. 520; and other cases as to her power to contract in relation to her real estate generally, and under the authority of Morrison v. Brown,......
-
Milligan v. Alexander
...wife is estopped to deny that a mechanic's lien was thereby created upon her separate estate. Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 Ill. 18; Greenleaf v. Beebe, 80 Ill. 520. The same result reached whether the wife is made liable by estoppel or on the score of agency, presumed from her knowledge of and ......