Kuhleman v. Schuler
| Decision Date | 31 March 1864 |
| Parties | HENRY KUHLEMAN, Respondent, v. CHARLES SCHULER et als., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.
This is a suit by plaintiff on mechanic's lien against Charles Schuler as contractor, and Louis Peters as owner of the house upon which the lien is claimed, under the act of February 14, 1857, applicable to St. Louis county only. The plaintiff was a dealer in hardware, and sold articles to Schuler, which Schuler used in building the house upon which the lien is claimed. The petition alleges that the house was, at the time the articles were furnished, the property of said Peters; and also that it was his property when the petition was filed and the notice given and lien filed.
The answer admits that Peters was the owner at the time the articles was furnished, but says that, before notice was given or lien filed, said Peters had (in consideration that the land had been purchased and the house built by the money of Emily Peters, as appears by the deed) conveyed said house and land to one Ludwig, as trustee for the sole use and benefit of Emily Peters, wife of said Louis. The answer denies that Louis Peters was the owner or agent of said property at the time the notice was given, or the lien filed, or the suit brought.
The testimoney proved that the articles charged were used in building the house, and that the debt was due from Schuler, the contractor; that notice was in due season given, but given to Louis Peters as owner; that the lien was filed in due season and form, but was filed against Louis Peters as owner. The notice was given on the 7th of August, 1860, and the lien filed on the 21st of August, 1860.
The deed of Peters to Ludwig, trustee of Emily Peters, was dated July 24th, and recorded August 2d, 1860. The deed was introduced in evidence by defendant. The defendant Schuler, who was introduced as a witness by the plaintiff, when recalled by the court, testified that he made the bargain to build the house with Mrs. Peters, who told him the lot was hers, and was a gift from her husband; that a contract was drawn up in the name of Louis Peters, but never signed.
The case was submitted to the court sitting as a jury, and the court gave judgment for the amount claimed against Schuler, and also against the house and land by virtue of the lien claimed.
The defendant, after the testimony was closed, asked the court to give the following instructions:
1. That unless Louis Peters was the owner of the house on the 21st of August, 1860, when the lien was filed, that no lien has been filed according to law, and the plaintiff cannot recover against the house and lot.
2. That the deed of July 24th, recorded August 2d, 1860, conveyed to Louis Ludwig all the legal interest Peters had in the house, as trustee for said Emily Peters.
3. That if it appears to the satisfaction of the court, sitting as a jury, that the contractor Schuler made the contract with Mrs. Peters, and was informed by her that it was her house and lot, no fraud or surprise was practised, and the plaintiff was bound to file his lien against the real owner of record.
4. If the lot was a gift to Mrs. Peters from her husband, it is not void against the plaintiff, because he is not a creditor of the defendants, and can only follow the property under the statute giving mechanics liens.
5. Unless the notice of August 7, 1860, was given to the owner of the property, or the agent of the owner, the notice was not according to the statute, and plaintiff cannot recover against the property.
6. If it appears from the evidence, that all the parties interested in the property are not parties to this suit, the plaintiff cannot recover, as the case now stands, against the property.
All of which instructions were refused.
The plaintiff, by his counsel, asked the following instruction, which was given:
“If the court, sitting as a jury, believe from the evidence that Louis Peters was the owner of the lot of ground described in the plaintiff's petition, and employed Charles Schuler to erect the buildings on the lot of ground mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landau v. Cottrill
...v. Sales, 56 Mo. 28; McAdow v. Sturtevant, 41 Mo.App. 220; Brick Co. v. Bormans, 19 Mo.App. 664; Schaeffer v. Lohman, 34 Mo. 68; Kuhleman v. Schuler, 35 Mo. 142; Douglas v. Zinc Co., 56 Mo. 388; Great Planing Mill v. Bormans, 19 Mo.App. 671. (3) By designating Will J. Howard in the deed of ......
-
R.D. Kurtz, Inc., v. Field
...of his claim to the persons who were owners of the property when the original and subcontracts were made, or to their agent (Kuhleman v. Schuler, 35 Mo. 142; McLundie & Co. v. Mount, 145 Mo.App. 660, 123 S.W. 966; P. M. Bruner Granitoid Co. v. Klein, 100 Mo.App. 289, 73 S.W. 313; Brown v. W......
-
Kurtz v. Field et al.
...to be given only to persons who were owners at time work was begun. McLundie & Co. v. Mount, 145 Mo. App. 660, 123 S.W. 966; Kuhleman v. Schuler, 35 Mo. 142; Hewitt v. Truitt, 23 Mo. App. 443; Koenig v. Boehme, 14 Mo. App. 593. (3) Personal service of notice of lien not required by statute.......
-
Edward McLundie & Co. v. Mount
...improvement, or the owner's agent, setting forth the amount he claims and from whom the same is due. [R. S. 1899, sec. 4221.] In Kuhleman v. Schuler, 35 Mo. 142, local statute applicable to the city of St. Louis, but in its requirements about notice like the general statute in force to-day,......