Kœnig v. Mueller

• Citation: 39 Mo. 165
• Parties: OTTO P. KŒNIG, Respondent, v. FLORIAN MUELLER AND HENRY BLAKESLY IMPLEADED WITH FRANZ OECHSLIN, Appellants.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1866
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

39 Mo. 165

OTTO P. KŒNIG, Respondent,

v.FLORIAN MUELLER AND HENRY BLAKESLY IMPLEADED WITH FRANZ OECHSLIN, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1866.

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.

Jecko & Clover, for appellants.

I. The account sued upon was for work done and materials furnished upon personal property which might have been taken away by the outgoing tenant, and therefore not the subject of a mechanic's lien--Mech. Lien L. of St. Louis Co., Sess. Acts 1857, p. 668.

II. Whether personal property, or become fixture by being attached to the freehold, still the demand was not the subject of lien, being for work done and materials furnished by a lessee for the purposes of trade, and therefore not a subject of lien with knowledge of the mechanic or material man.

III. The plaintiff cannot have a lien upon the property or estate of the lessee; the estate of the lessee had been ended, and the law will not be so construed as to punish an innocent party--a landlord who leases his property to a new tenant after forfeiture without knowledge of a secret lien.

Taussig & Kellogg, for respondent.

I. Whether the work set forth in plaintiff's account and for which he obtained a judgment was done for the repairing and improvement of the buildings and leasehold estate described in the petition was a question of fact which the court below, sitting as a jury, found for plaintiff, and which this court will not review.

II. The work for which plaintiff recovered judgment was done in and upon the buildings described in the petition, and not upon personal property or fixtures.

III. Work done in changing or altering a building which is in sound and tenantable condition, at the request of the person having control of the same, is an “improvement” within the meaning of the 2d section of the mechanics' lien law.

IV. To entitle a mechanic in St. Louis county to a lien against a leasehold estate for work done on leasehold premises, it is not necessary that the work done should be necessary for, or an amelioration of, the freehold; it is sufficient if it is an improvement or reparation of the leasehold estate. In this case it was expressly charged that the work done was an “improvement of the leasehold estate.”

V. The work was done and the materials were furnished before the forfeiture of the lease; it was therefore proper to grant special execution against the leasehold premises--§ 2 p. 668, Sess. Acts 1857.

FAGG, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit brought in the St. Louis Land Court, under the provisions of “An act entitled an act for the better security of mechanics and others erecting buildings, or furnishing materials for the same, in the county of St. Louis.”

The account was for work and labor done and materials furnished in making certain additions and alterations to property located in the city of St. Louis, of which the said Blakesly was the owner and Franz Oechslin the lessee. After the performance of the labor and the furnishing of said materials, there was a forfeiture of the lease and a re-letting of the premises to the other defendant, Florian Mueller.

Upon the trial there was a verdict and a...