Julius v. Callahan

• Decision Date: 13 December 1895
• Docket Number: 9500--(63)
• Citation: 65 N.W. 267,63 Minn. 154
• Parties: HENRY JULIUS v. WILLIAM CALLAHAN and Others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

65 N.W. 267

63 Minn. 154

HENRY JULIUS v. WILLIAM CALLAHAN and Others

Nos. 9500--(63)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 13, 1895

Appeal by defendant Jordan from an order of the district court for Waseca county, Buckham, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.

Order affirmed.

John Moonan, for appellant.

E. B Collester, for respondent Julius.

F. B Andrews, for respondent Laird-Norton Company.

OPINION

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action to enforce a mechanic's lien for labor performed by plaintiff for the firm of Callahan & Cotter contractors, in the erection of a house for defendant Jordan. Laird-Norton Company appeared in the action, and claimed a lien for material furnished to Callahan & Cotter for the erection of the same building. The assignments of error are unnecessarily numerous, often mere repetitions, and but very few of them require special notice.

1. Both Callahan and Cotter were impleaded as defendants, and it is alleged in the complaint and admitted by the answer that they were copartners. The summons was served on Callahan, but not on Cotter, and on the trial the defendant Jordan moved that the action be dismissed, and, this motion being denied, that the action be continued to get service on Cotter, which was also denied. The denial of these motions is assigned as error. Conceding that the original contractors are necessary parties to an action by a subcontractor to enforce a mechanic's lien, still there was no error in the ruling of the court. Callahan and Cotter were jointly indebted to the plaintiff, and, the summons being served on one of them, the defendant might proceed, unless the court otherwise directed, and have judgment against both defendants, enforceable against the joint property of both and the separate property of the one served. G. S. 1894, § 5207.

2. The land upon which the house in question was erected was Jordan's homestead, and it is urged that, as to the claim of Laird-Norton Company for material, the provision of article 1, § 12, of the constitution of the state, that exempt property shall be liable for debts incurred for work done or material furnished in the construction, repair, or improvement of the same, is itself unconstitutional, because the subject is not expressed in the title of the so-called act (Laws 1887, c. 2) by which this proposed amendment to the constitution was submitted to the people. Article 4, § 27, of the constitution has...