Houlahan v. Clark

Decision Date09 April 1901
Citation85 N.W. 676,110 Wis. 43
PartiesHOULAHAN v. CLARK ET AL.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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.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 upon, but did set the same in such manner as to render the building useless, and so that it did not conform to the portion of the lake which he had caused to be dredged, so as to be used in connection with such building when so located. The answer also alleged that some of the claims of the so-called subcontractors were for the same matters covered by the plaintiff's claims, and also reasons why the others should not be allowed. At the conclusion of the trial the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, wherein it was found that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for $228.25, with interest, as therein stated, and that the several subcontractors were entitled to judgment with interest, as therein stated, and that such claims were liens upon the respective shares of the premises owned by Richmond and Anderson, as well as Clark. From the judgment entered thereon accordingly the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1913
    ... ... abandoned in order to recover another measure of value than ... that agreed upon by the parties to the contract. (Clark ... v. Smith, 14 Johns. 326; Peoria v. Fruin-Bambrick ... Co., 169 Ill. 36; Denmead v. Coburn, 15 Md. 29; ... Dermott v. Jones, 2 Wall. 1; Eckel ... v ... 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 ... ...
  • Leitermann v. Barnard
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1910
    ...Wis. 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.......
  • W. H. Pipkorn Co. v. Tratnik
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1915
    ...the 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 ......
  • Plante v. Jacobs
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1960
    ...82 per cent of the old boiler and only approximately one-half of the boiler capacity contemplated by the contract. In Houlahan v. Clark, 1901, 110 Wis. 43, 85 N.W. 676, the contract provided the plaintiff was to drive pilings in the lake and place a boat house thereon parallel and in line w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT