Hickey v. Collom
| Decision Date | 24 December 1891 |
| Citation | 50 N.W. 918,47 Minn. 565 |
| Parties | Joseph Hickey v. J. Frank Collom and others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
A motion for a reargument of this case was denied January 6 1892.
Appeal by defendant John T. Blaisdell (impleaded with J. Frank Collom and others) from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, entered on the decision of Hooker, J., in an action by plaintiff to enforce a mechanic's lien establishing a lien to the amount of $ 1,317.99 in favor of defendant Joseph H. Brinton, and a lien to the amount of $ 1,404 in favor of defendants James H. and E. F. Drake partners as the Drake Company, upon the interests of both Blaisdell and Collom in certain real estate in Minneapolis.
Respondents James H. Drake and E. F. Drake the judgment affirmed, and Respondent Brinton the judgment reversed.
Brooks & Hendrix, for appellant.
F. W. Zollman, for respondent Brinton.
Young & Lightner, for respondents Drake.
In October, 1887, the defendant Collom bargained with the defendant Blaisdell for the purchase of certain lots mentioned in the complaint, and he entered into a written contract with him, in and by which he agreed to pay therefor the sum of $ 23,000 within three years from the date of the contract, and to commence at once the construction of a stone and brick dwelling thereon, 50x70 feet, at a cost of not less than $ 20,000. Blaisdell on his part agreed to execute to Collom a warranty deed of the lots upon the completion of the building and payment of the purchase money, or the execution of a mortgage for the purchase-money in case it was not paid, and, in case of default on Collom's part, possession of the premises was to be surrendered to Blaisdell, and the agreement to be cancelled, time being made essential. Collom entered into possession under the contract, and commenced the erection of the house as agreed. And about the 1st of May, 1889, the defendants James H. Drake and E. F. Drake made an agreement with him to furnish a certain quantity of cut stone to be used in the erection of the dwelling-house referred to; and between the last date and the 19th day of July, 1889, they furnished and delivered to him the stone so contracted for in fulfilment of their contract, the contract price and value of which is found to be $ 1,282. The stone was all placed on the lots where the dwelling-house was in process of erection, and a portion of it, to the value of $ 430, was actually set and used in the building. The work ceased on the building in August, 1889, and work thereon was not resumed, and it remains unfinished, and the rest of the stone not yet used therein has since remained upon the premises. Collom became insolvent, and assigned his property, and defendant Blaisdell is entitled to the possession of the premises under the contract. The stone was furnished under the contract, and in pursuance thereof, with the consent of Blaisdell, while Collom was still in possession prosecuting the erection of the building. It was so furnished for the erection of the building, within the meaning of the lien law then in force. It was one entire contract, and the defendants Drake were obliged to file their verified account under the statute within one year from the date of the completion of their contract, -- that is to say, after the delivery of the last items of stone furnished; and the account so filed operated as a lien from the time of the commencement of the delivery thereof under the contract.
The appellant Blaisdell does not dispute that the lien attached to and bound the interest of Collom, but denies that his title and interest in the lots are bound thereby, and, in any event, not for the stone delivered and remaining unused on the lot. But his contract with Collom expressly authorized and required the erection of the building upon the lots, and the contracts made by the latter were in...
To continue reading
Request your trial