Holzhour v. Meer

• Decision Date: 31 March 1875
• Citation: 59 Mo. 434
• Parties: PHILIP HOLZHOUR, et al., Plaintiffs in Errror, v. HENRY MEER, et al., Defendants in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

59 Mo. 434

PHILIP HOLZHOUR, et al., Plaintiffs in Errror,

v.HENRY MEER, et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1875.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.

Hitchcock, Lubke & Player, for Plaintiff in Error.

The judgment is conclusive and binding, unless rever or modified upon appeal, although it may be manifest that the judgment was erroneous, because the justice had jurisdiction of the “subject matter” of mechanic's liens. (Freem. Judgm., § 135; 33 Ill., 166; 1 Allen, 448; 12 Cal., 128; 3 Pet., 193; 19 Md., 375.)

II. The mechanic has his election under the statute, and may proceed against the land alone. The complaint filed with the justice shows that the work of the plaintiffs was for “improvements” upon this land. The mechanic who excavates a cellar has certainly no greater claim to having “improved” a lot of ground, than the mechanic who tears down an old building or removes debris therefrom, to enable the owner either to repair by building upon the same foundation, or to substitute other improvements.”

III. It was certainly error to set aside and vacate the general judgment against Meer.E. C. Kehr, for Defendant in Error.

I. The law does not give a lien upon real estate for work done in tearing down a building. It contemplates a lien only where a building, erection or improvement has been put up. (Wagn. Stat., 907-8, § 2; 908, §§ 3, 4; 911, §§ 17, 18, 21; 912, § 23; Houck Mec. Liens, § 154, p. 159; § 155, p. 160; § 156, p. 162; § 204, p. 212.) And the term, “improvement” in the statute, means such permanent and substantial erections as essentially augment the interest which the tenant has in the land. (Thomas vs. Smith, 42 Penn. St., 73.)

II. Where the law declares the lien to be on the building and lot of land on which it stands, it is held to apply to both the building and the land, not separately, but both together. (Belding vs. Cushing, 1 Gray, 579; Coddington vs. Drydock Co., 2 Vroom, 480; Houck Mec. Liens, 212, § 204.)

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

In pursuance of the act of 1871, (Wagn. Stat., 811 a, ed. of 1872) the plaintiffs instituted a proceeding before a justice of the peace in St. Louis County, for the purpose of enforcing a mechanics' lien. The justice gave a judgment accordingly, and a transcript thereof was duly filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court. Upon the transcript an execution was issued, which was afterwards set aside and quashed, and the plaintiffs sued out their writ of error.

It is contended by the plaintiffs that the decision of the Circuit Court was wrong, as the justice acquired jurisdiction over the case, and that defendant's only remedy was by appeal. If their premises are granted their conclusion necessarily follows. Though the judgment of the justice was erroneous or reversible, still if he had jurisdiction over the subject matter, an appeal to a competent court was the proper mode of correcting the mistake. But if the record shows that the judgment was void or that the justice proceeded without any authority, then his proceedings may well be treated as a nullity, and the court had the undoubted right to quash any execution issued upon them.

The account filed before the justice, on which the lien was claimed, states that the work was done in tearing down an old house, and the judgment rendered thereon was made a lien against the lot alone, without any reference to any building or erection on it.

The first section of the statute relating to mechanic's liens, gives to every mechanic or other person who shall do or perform any work or labor upon, or furnish any material for any building, erection or improvements upon land, or for repairing the same, by virtue of any contract, a lien upon such building, erection or improvements, and upon the land belonging to such owner or proprietor, on which the same are...