Houlahan v. Clark
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | CASSODAY |
| Citation | 85 N.W. 676,110 Wis. 43 |
| Parties | HOULAHAN v. CLARK ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1901 |
110 Wis. 43
85 N.W. 676
HOULAHAN
v.
CLARK ET AL.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
April 9, 1901.
Appeal from circuit court, Waukesha county; James J. Dick, Judge.
Action by Patrick Houlahan against Walter C. Clark and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
[85 N.W. 676]
C. E. Armin, for appellants.
D. J. Hemlock and V. H. Tichenor, for respondent.
CASSODAY, C. J.
This action was commenced July 23, 1898, by Patrick Houlahan, as contractor, against W. C. Clark, Helen N. Richmond, and Oriola M. Anderson, as owners and tenants in common, and four others, as subcontractors, to enforce a lien for $272 for work, labor, and services in straightening and removing a building, driving and straightening piles on the premises described adjacent to the shore of Lake Pewaukee, between December 9, 1897, and March 7, 1898. The four defendants claiming as subcontractors severally answered, setting up their respective claims as such. The defendants Richmond and Anderson severally answered by way of denials, and a disclaimer of any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief in respect to any of the allegations of the complaint. The defendant Clark separately answered to the effect that he was the owner of the undivided one-third of the premises described, and that Richmond and Anderson each owned the undivided third thereof; that in the fall of 1897 he obtained permission from his said co-tenants to remove the building onto piles to be driven for that purpose adjacent to the shore on the premises described, and abutting thereon, and reconstructing the same for the purposes of a boathouse; that, aside from such permission, neither Richmond nor Anderson had any part or parcel in the contract made by him with the plaintiff, and that they had no knowledge thereof; that the plaintiff was to procure some one to drive the piles in the bed of the lake adjacent to the shore for supporting the building when moved, and to be paid for by the defendant; that he pointed out to the plaintiff where the piles were to be driven, and the building to be located, to which he agreed, and that the plaintiff was to place the building upon the piles as so agreed upon, and that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff for so removing and placing the building $75; that the plaintiff carelessly and negligently directed the driving of the piles, and did not have the same driven at the place agreed upon, and did not place the building at the place agreed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
...Sahrbacher, 38 P. 635; Harris v. Sharpless, 202 Pa. St. 243; Hart v. Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444; Hood v. Smiley, 5 Wyo. 70; Houlahan v. Clark, 110 Wis. 43; Jennings v. Camp., 13 Johns. 94; Perry v. Quackenbush, 38 P. 740; Smith v. Brady, 17 N.Y. 173; Turner v. Wills, 64 N. J. L. 269; Zottman v.......
-
Leitermann v. Barnard
...606, 70 N. W. 683;Williams v. Thrall, 101 Wis. 337, 76 N. W. 599;Manning v. School Dist., 124 Wis. 84, 102 N. W. 356;Houlahan v. Clark, 110 Wis. 43, 85 N. W. 676;Manthey v. Stock, 133 Wis. 107, 113 N. W. 443;Froelich v. Christie, 115 Wis. 549, 92 N. W. 241;Charley v. Potthoff, 118 Wis. 258,......
-
W. H. Pipkorn Co. v. Tratnik
...principal contractor. Seeman v. Biemann, 108 Wis. 365, 84 N. W. 490. There is no conflict between the cases cited and Houlahan v. Clark, 110 Wis. 43, 85 N. W. 676. There the principal contractor was held not to be the agent of the owner, because he did not build the kind of a structure whic......
-
Blair v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co.
...other words, it is impossible to say from anything contained in the order that any portion of the locus in quo is within the limits of the [85 N.W. 676]highway laid out or attempted to be so laid out June 14, 1858. The statute then in force required the supervisors to “make out a descriptio......
-
Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
...Sahrbacher, 38 P. 635; Harris v. Sharpless, 202 Pa. St. 243; Hart v. Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444; Hood v. Smiley, 5 Wyo. 70; Houlahan v. Clark, 110 Wis. 43; Jennings v. Camp., 13 Johns. 94; Perry v. Quackenbush, 38 P. 740; Smith v. Brady, 17 N.Y. 173; Turner v. Wills, 64 N. J. L. 269; Zottman v.......
-
Leitermann v. Barnard
...606, 70 N. W. 683;Williams v. Thrall, 101 Wis. 337, 76 N. W. 599;Manning v. School Dist., 124 Wis. 84, 102 N. W. 356;Houlahan v. Clark, 110 Wis. 43, 85 N. W. 676;Manthey v. Stock, 133 Wis. 107, 113 N. W. 443;Froelich v. Christie, 115 Wis. 549, 92 N. W. 241;Charley v. Potthoff, 118 Wis. 258,......
-
W. H. Pipkorn Co. v. Tratnik
...principal contractor. Seeman v. Biemann, 108 Wis. 365, 84 N. W. 490. There is no conflict between the cases cited and Houlahan v. Clark, 110 Wis. 43, 85 N. W. 676. There the principal contractor was held not to be the agent of the owner, because he did not build the kind of a structure whic......
-
Blair v. Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co.
...other words, it is impossible to say from anything contained in the order that any portion of the locus in quo is within the limits of the [85 N.W. 676]highway laid out or attempted to be so laid out June 14, 1858. The statute then in force required the supervisors to “make out a descriptio......