Hill v. Bowers
Decision Date | 01 January 1891 |
Citation | 45 Kan. 592,26 P. 13 |
Parties | GEORGE C. HILL et al. v. J. C. BOWERS et al |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Washington District Court.
THE opinion states the case.
Judgment reversed.
Chas Smith, and Joseph G. Lowe, for plaintiffs in error.
E Hutchinson, for defendants in error.
OPINION
This action was commenced in the district court of Washington county, by J. C. Bowers & Sons, to foreclose a lien upon certain real estate for iron fencing, gates and posts furnished by them to E. C. Knowles, one of the defendants in the court below, who held the land upon which the lien was claimed under a bond for a deed from J. B. Besack. E. C. Knowles assigned his interest in the property to Edwin Knowles, and the same was afterward assigned by him to the plaintiffs in error, who received a deed from J. B. Besack and wife, having complied with the terms of the original contract to convey. Service was made upon E. C. Knowles by publication. The other defendants answered that the material had never been used in the erection, alteration or repairs of the fences upon the premises purchased by them; that the material for which plaintiffs claimed a lien had never been placed on said premises, or used thereon in any manner. At the November term, 1887, judgment was rendered by the court below against the defendant, E. C. Knowles, for the amount due for the material, and the same was declared a lieu upon the premises of the plaintiffs in error, who bring the case here. It was proven upon the trial that the material furnished was never used to build a fence on the land upon which a lien was claimed. It was piled upon the public highway in front of the premises, where it remained some time, and was afterward taken by the sheriff of Washington county on an execution issued against E. C. Knowles, and sold. In the sale of the property by Knowles to the plaintiffs in error, the fencing was expressly exempted upon the ground that it had never been accepted by the purchaser.
We think the court below erred in sustaining this lien. The material was never attached to and made a part of the land. The language of the statute is the same with reference to buildings as fences: "Any . . . person who shall, under contract, . . . furnish material for erecting . . . any building." "Any . . . person who shall, under contract, . . . furnish material for erecting . . . any fence." (Laws of 1872, ch. 141,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haz-Mat Response, Inc. v. Certified Waste Services Ltd.
...earlier Kansas cases not involving the precise issue we now address provide some guidance for the present statute. In Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592, 26 P. 13 (1891), the statute in question granted a lien for a person who furnished material for erecting any fence. The court held that it must ......
-
Mcelrath & Rogers v. W. G. Kimmons & Sons
... ... 513, 131 A. S. R. 268, 86 ... N.E. 837; Luper v. Mayers, 10 Ind.App. 314, 37 N.E ... 1070; Rice v. Hodge, 726 Kan. 164; Hill v ... Bowers, 45 Kan. 592, 26 P. 13; McGany v ... Averill, 50 Kan. 362, 34 A. S. R. 120, 31 P. 1082; ... Consolidated Eng. Co. v. Crawley, ... ...
-
Meyers Lumber Company, a Corp. v. Tompkins
...and to take notice of the authority of, and the limitations placed upon, such contractor. Andrews v. Kneeland, 6 Cow. 354; Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592, 26 P. 13; Kneeland, Mechanics' Liens, 87; Bottomly v. Grace Church, 2 Cal. 90; Houghton v. Blake, 5 Cal. 240; Rogers v. Currier, 13 Gray, 1......
-
Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Kroh Bros. Development Co.
...v. Romine, 200 Kan. at 485, 437 P.2d 312; Southwestern Electrical Co. v. Hughes, 139 Kan. 89, 93, 30 P.2d 114 (1934); Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592, 593, 26 Pac. 13 (1891). Here, neither Continental's nor Furman's plans and drawings have resulted in any physical improvement or development on ......