Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Myers
| Decision Date | 24 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 33506--7,s. 33506--7 |
| Citation | 452 S.W.2d 599 |
| Parties | The KINNEAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Richard L. MYERS, d/b/a Richard L. Myers Construction Co., and Richard L. Myers Construction Co., a Corporation, Defendants, Inland Steel Products Co., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Lee Bros. Contracting Co., Inc., a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Glen C. Schomburg, St. Louis, for Inland Steel Products Co.
Oliver F. Erbs, Kirkwood, Morris A. Shenker, St. Louis, for Lee Bros. Contracting Co.
Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, C. Perry Bascom, William Langton, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
DOERNER, Commissioner.
In this action for an equitable mechanic's lien the plaintiff, The Kinnear Manufacturing Company, a subcontractor, named the Richard L. Myers Construction Company, the general contractor, Inland Steel Products Company and Lee Brothers Contracting Company, other subcontractors, and McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, the landowner, as parties defendant. Inland Steel and Lee Brothers filed individual answers and cross-bills in which they prayed for a money judgment against the Myers Company and a lien on McDonnell's property. McDonnell filed separate motions for summary judgments against Inland Steel and Lee Brothers, both of which the court sustained. As authorized by Civil Rule 82.06, V.A.M.R., the court specifically designated such judgments to be final judgments for the purpose of appeal within the meaning of § 512.020, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., and these appeals followed. By leave, McDonnell filed a consolidated brief and the cases were argued and submitted together.
It appears from the record that in the latter part of 1963 the Myers Company, the general contractor, entered into a contract to construct a building on McDonnell's property. The Myers Company, in turn, made separate contracts with Inland Steel for the furnishing of certain materials, and with Lee Brothers for certain materials and labor. The Myers Company defaulted on its contract with McDonnell in the Spring of 1964, and Inland Steel and Lee Brothers, in their respective cross-claims, alleged that the Myers Company was indebted to each of them for at least a part of the work, labor and materials they had furnished in the construction of the building.
The court sustained the summary judgments on different grounds, which we will consider in turn. As to Inland Steel, § 429.080 requires one who seeks to establish a mechanic's lien on the owner's property to file with the circuit clerk a lien statement which contains, among other things, '* * * a true description of the property, or so near as to identify the same, upon which the lien is intended to apply, with the name of the owner * * * if known to the person filing the lien, * * *.' The purported description of McDonnell's property stated by Inland Steel in its lien statement was, The actual legal description of the property, to quote from Inland Steel's cross-claim is:
'* * * the following described land situated in the County of St. Louis, in the City of Berkeley, State of Missouri, and the improvements thereon to-wit:
'Commercial building, known as Property No. 48 and as Ramp Paint Booth, in the County of St. Louis, Missouri, and the land on which the same are constructed and erected, described as follows:
'A parcel of ground located on a tract of 6.407 acres owned by the Pasadena Realty Company, a corporation, by instrument recorded in Book 2933, Page 35, of the St. Louis County Recorder's Office, and on a tract of 81.106 acres owned by McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, bounded on the north by the south line of Banshee Road and on the west and south by the Municipal Airport Facilities owned by the City of St. Louis--along a line running northeasterly thence to the east line which terminates at a 90 degree angle with Banshee Road; being part of a tract shown on the St. Louis County Assessor's plat in Berkeley District No. 2 Plat Book 5, Page 145 in the name of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation and all improvements located thereon; said parcel known specifically as Building No. 48--Paint Facilities Ramp.
'Said parcels of land being contiguous to each other and together from one body of land, being the land on which said commercial building, known as Property No. 48 and as Ramp Paint Facilities are situated and erected, and all of said property being in the City of Berkeley, County of St. Louis, Missouri.'
The trial court held that the phrase, stated in Inland Steel's lien statement did not meet the statutory requirement for '* * * a true description of the property, or so near as to identify the same * * *.' We agree. In fact, the so-called description is actually no description at all. 'McDonnell Air Craft Corporation' is the name of the landowner, not a description of any property owned by it. Nor is a description of any land owned by McDonnell. There is not even a reference to the building constructed by Myers. And as Inland Steel's legal description in its cross-claim shows, McDonnell's property is located in the City of Berkeley, County of St. Louis, not in the City of St. Louis.
Inland Steel points to a part of one of its affidavits filed in opposition to McDonnell's motion for a summary judgment in which it was stated that McDonnell at the Lambert-St. Louis Municipal Airport occupies an area that is well known to the general population; and from this it argues that if the description in the lien statement is specific and definite enough so as to enable one familiar with the locality to identify the premises intended to be covered by the lien it is sufficient. Holland v. McCarty, 24 Mo.App. 82, is cited in support of that argument. What was said in that case, however, must be read and understood in the light of the facts in that case. There a lien was sought to be impressed on a grandstand at a race track. As the court's opinion states, the description given in the lien statement was not merely that of a grandstand on the landowner's property; what the statement contained was (24 Mo.App. 85): '* * * The claim of lien describes the entire tract known as the fair grounds, by metes and bounds, and seeks to establish a mechanic's lien thereon. * * *' Although not cited by Inland Steel, a similar factual situation prevailed in Hertel Electric Co. v. Gabriel, Mo.App., 292 S.W.2d 95, where, because the landowner's six acre tract was not in a city, town or village, the lien claimant was entitled to obtain a lien on only one acre on which the improvement had been made. There the description given in the lien statement described the entire six acres by metes and bounds, but did not describe the one acre. The court, as in Holland v. McCarty, supra, ruled that since the description was specific and definite enough to enable one familiar with the locality to identify the premises intended to be covered by the lien the description of it was sufficient. Unlike those cases, here nothing purporting to be a legal description of any tract or parcel of ground was stated in the lien statement.
We are aware that our mechanic's lien law is remedial in nature, Hicks v. Scofield, 121 Mo. 381, 25 S.W. 755; that its purpose is to give security to mechanics and materialmen for labor and materials furnished in improving the owner's property, Vasquez v. Village Center, Inc., Mo., 362 S.W.2d 588; and that the law should be construed as favorably to those persons as its terms will permit, Mid-West Engineering & Construction Co. v. Campagna, Mo., 421 S.W.2d 229. We are equally cognizant, however, of those cases which hold that the policy of liberal construction does not relieve a lien claimant from the necessity of reasonably and substantially complying with the requirements of the statute in order to secure its benefits, Stewart Concrete & Material Co. v. James H. Stanton Construction Co., Mo.App., 433 S.W.2d 76; and that a reasonable and substantial compliance with the statutory requirements is a condition precedent to the right of the lien claimant to maintain his action and to establish a lien on his property, Putnam v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wooldridge v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
...of Missouri's statutes, is only applicable to corporations which are "doing business" in Missouri. See generally Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Myers, 452 S.W.2d 599, 603 (Mo.App.1970); State v. Jensen, 359 S.W.2d 343 (Mo. en banc 1962). In addition, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Beech un......
-
S & R Builders and Suppliers, Inc. v. Marler
... ... banc 1979); J. R. Meade Co. v. Forward Construction Co., 526 S.W.2d 21 (Mo.App.1975); Kinnear Manufacturing Co. v. Myers, 452 S.W.2d 599, 602(1, 2) (Mo.App.1970) ... Bearing in ... ...
-
Peerless Supply Co. v. Industrial Plumbing & Heating Co.
...had also filed its separate legal suit previous to the filing of the equitable mechanic's lien suit. The case of Kinnear Manufacturing Company v. Myers, Mo.App., 452 S.W.2d 599, involved a somewhat similar problem. However, in the Kinnear case, service was never obtained on the general cont......
-
R. L. Sweet Lumber Co. v. E. L. Lane, Inc.
...have also cited the cases of Brown Supply Company v. J. C. Penney Company, 505 S.W.2d 463 (Mo.App.1974), Kinnear Manufacturing Company v. Myers, 452 S.W.2d 599 (Mo.App.1970), and Packard v. Sugarman, 31 Misc. 623, 66 N.Y.S. 30 (1900), but those cases do not support their contentions. In Bro......