Lake Superior Lumber Co. v. Homestead Building & Loan Ass'n

• Decision Date: 05 May 1934
• Docket Number: 31657.
• Citation: 32 P.2d 202,139 Kan. 565
• Parties: LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CO. v. HOMESTEAD BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N [*]) et al.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

32 P.2d 202

139 Kan. 565

LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CO. v. HOMESTEAD BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N ^[*]) et al.

No. 31657.

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 5, 1934

Syllabus by the Court.

In absence of motion for new trial, review is limited to question whether judgment is supported by pleadings and findings of fact.

Where no motion for new trial was filed, Supreme Court will not inquire whether evidence supports findings of fact.

Where no motion for a new trial is filed, review on appeal is limited to the question whether the judgment is supported by the pleadings and findings of fact, and inquiry will not be made as to whether the evidence supports the findings of fact.

Appeal from District Court, McPherson County; John G. Somers, Judge.

Action by the Lake Superior Lumber Company against the Homestead Building & Loan Association and others. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant named appeals. On motion to dismiss the appeal.

Motion allowed, and appeal dismissed.

John Hamilton Wilson, of Salina, for appellant.

James A. Cassler, of McPherson, for appellee.

THIELE Justice.

This was an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien.

On July 7, 1931, the Homestead Building & Loan Association made a written contract to sell its codefendants R. R. Krehbiel and Anna Krehbiel certain real estate in McPherson, Kan., for a total consideration of $6,000, payable $50 down, the balance at the rate of $50 per month, with interest. Krehbiels were to pay the taxes and to keep the improvements insured and, in event of default on their part, all rights and interest created or existing in their favor should cease and determine, and the association should be entitled to possession, without any right in Krehbiels for reclamation or compensation for moneys paid or services performed. There were other provisions in the contract not necessary to notice here, but it was also provided as follows: "It is part of the consideration herein that the second party (Krehbiels) spend not less than $1,000.00 within 60 days from August 1st 1931, on improvements and betterment to the buildings located hereon."

Pursuant to said contract, Krehbiels entered into possession, and in accordance with their contract caused improvements to be made, and for that purpose purchased of the plaintiff building materials amounting to $579.53. Demand for payment being refused, the plaintiff in due time filed its mechanic's lien statement showing that between July 13 1931, and October 1, 1931, it sold to the Homestead Building & Loan Association "through R. R. Krehbiel, its representative and agent and who also had an agreement for the purchase of said premises and was in possession of the said premises and was devoting his time to the improvement of the said premises," the materials shown in said statement. In its petition to foreclose its mechanic's lien, plaintiff set up the above facts, and alleged further "That the contract of purchase wherein the said defendants R. R. Krehbiel and wife is given an equity in the said premises has not been recorded, but that the same was duly presented to the said plaintiff whereby and by means of which the said plaintiff did sell the said material and supplies herein alleged to the said defendants, and a copy of the said contract was left with the said plaintiff."

A copy of the...