Kansas City Pump Co. v. Vrooman

Decision Date06 October 1913
Citation160 S.W. 48,174 Mo. App. 63
PartiesKANSAS CITY PUMP CO. v. VROOMAN et al.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Plaintiff, having sold certain plumbing supplies to R. and others as the B. Plumbing Company, in preparing a mechanic's lien claim was unable to definitely ascertain who constituted the company, or whether such organization had been fully perfected, and therefore alleged in the claim that the materials were furnished by it under one entire general contract with R. and others as the "Berger Plumbing Company," subcontractors under a certain contractor, and served notice on the owner, reciting that the materials were furnished under a contract with R. and others as the Berger Plumbing Company, subcontractors under V., the contractor, for making the improvements for such owner. Held that the lien was not defective for failure of the notice to the owner to name all the persons with whom the contract was made as constituting the plumbing company.

2. MECHANICS' LIENS (§ 157)—NONLIENABLE ITEMS—INCLUSION BY MISTAKE.

Where certain nonlienable items were unintentionally included in an account for which plaintiff sought to enforce a mechanic's lien, and plaintiff disclaimed as to them at the trial, and they were easily separable and stricken, their inclusion did not invalidate the lien.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Jas. E. Goodrich, Judge.

Suit to enforce a mechanic's lien by the Kansas City Pump Company against Carl Vrooman and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

R. E. Rice and Austin & Davis, all of Kansas City, for appellants. New, Kennish & Krauthoff and John N. Davis, all of Kansas City, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

This is a suit to enforce a mechanic's lien upon certain buildings in Kansas City for plumbing supplies furnished by the Kansas City Pump Company, purchased of it by B. Berger and J. R. Riley for use in said buildings. The defendant Carl Vrooman was the general contractor, and the defendant J. D. Cook was the owner of the property. Is seems that the general contractor, Vrooman, made a contract with Berger, as a subcontractor, to furnish and put in the plumbing, but Berger could not purchase any supplies on his own account, and made an arrangement with the defendant J. R. Riley by which the two were to buy the supplies and put them in. They went to the Kansas City Pump Company and bought the supplies for the buildings, and the same were sold to them and delivered at the buildings by said pump company, but the latter would not sell them to Berger alone, and agreed to charge, and did charge, them on their books to J. R. Riley. At this time Berger, Riley, and Theodore Stegner officed at the same place, and some arrangements were made between them, at least between Berger and Riley, to form a partnership under the name of the Berger Plumbing Company. Whether Stegner was ever a member of the partnership or not, there was ample evidence to show that, as to the Kansas City Pump Company, Berger and Riley were partners in the purchase of these supplies. The material purchased was partly installed in the building, but Berger left the country, and Vrooman completed the installation of the supplies. After Berger and Riley had abandoned the job, plaintiff presented an order signed by Berger to Vrooman for the amount of the claim, and Vrooman, although the entire bill was charged to Riley, agreed to pay same as soon as a garnishment proceeding against him as a debtor of Berger could be disposed of. He made no objection to the order otherwise. In preparing and filing its lien claim, plaintiff was not able to definitely ascertain who constituted the firm of the Berger Plumbing Company, or whether that organization had been fully perfected, and therefore drew up said lien claim for materials furnished by it under one...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Nat. Plumbing Supply Co. v. Torretti et al.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 7 Diciembre 1943
    ...& Co. v. Mount, 145 Mo. App. 660, 123 S.W. 966; Bruner Granitoid Co. v. Klein, 100 Mo. App. 289, 73 S.W. 313; Kansas City Pump Co. v. Vrooman, 174 Mo. App. 63, 160 S.W. 48. (10) The Mechanics' Lien Law should be construed as favorably as its terms will legitimately permit, to afford effecti......
  • National Plumbing Supply Co. v. Torretti
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 7 Diciembre 1943
    ... ... [ cert. den. 266 U.S. 611, 69 L.Ed. 467, 45 S.Ct ... 94]; City of St. Louis ex rel. v. Southern Surety ... Co., 333 Mo. 180, 62 S.W.2d ... v. Klein, 100 ... Mo.App. 289, 73 S.W. 313; Kansas City Pump Co. v ... Vrooman, 174 Mo.App. 63, 160 S.W. 48. (10) The ... ...
  • Hertel Elec. Co. v. Gabriel, 7452
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 7 Junio 1956
    ...that the notice was required 'for obvious reasons.' Of course, it does not have the function of a summons. Kansas City Pump Co. v. Vrooman, 174 Mo.App. 63, 160 S.W. 48, 49. ...
  • H. B. McCray Lumber Co. v. Standard Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 14 Junio 1926
    ...Cement Co. v. Logan, supra; Knapp Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Kansas City Stockyards Co., 168 Mo. App. 146, 152 S. W. 119; Kansas City Pump Co. v. Vrooman, 174 Mo. App. 63, 160 S. W. 48. We think the full ten days' notice required by the statute (section 7235, R. S. 1919), was given. " Section 7058, ......
  • 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