Lemly v. La Grange, Iron & Steel Co.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1877 |
| Citation | 65 Mo. 545 |
| Parties | LEMLY ET AL. v. THE LA GRANGE, IRON AND STEEL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Lewis Circuit Court.--HON. E. V. WILSON, Judge.
Glover & Shepley with Lee & Adams for plaintiff in error.
Dryden & Dryden for defendant in error.
The buildings, though physically disconnected and each on a separate block of ground, were erected at the same time, by one and the same owner, and both designed and essentially necessary for the accomplishment of a common end, to wit: the production of steel rails; neither building would be of any use without the other. We respectfully submit whether this unity of end and design of the buildings ought not to be held a sufficient ground to distinguish the case at bar from Fitzgerald v. Thomas.
Action to enforce mechanic's lien for material furnished, resulting in judgment for plaintiffs. The case hinges upon the sufficiency of the lien paper filed by them in attempted compliance with the statute. That paper describes the property sought to be charged, as: “One brick building for a rail mill, which is about two hundred and twenty-five feet long, ninety feet wide and twenty-six feet high; also, one brick building for a puddle mill, which is about two hundred feet long, seventy feet wide and twenty-six feet high; which buildings are situated in that part of North LaGrange, in the county of Lewis and State of Missouri, known as blocks numbered three and four, (3 & 4,) owned by the LaGrange Iron and Steel Company, a corporation.” The agreed statement of facts show that blocks three and four are separated by Clay street; that the rail mill is built on the former, and the puddle mill on the latter; that these blocks consist of ten lots each, with an alley through the centre; that the rail mill is located on portions of all the lots in block three and extending across the alley, and that the puddle mill is similarly situated on block four, except that not being so long, that mill is not located on two of the northernmost lots of that block. It is obvious that from the lien paper it is not possible to determine on what lot or lots or on what block either the rail mill or the puddle mill is situate, nor whether each building is located on both blocks, nor what proportion of the material entered into the construction of each particular building. These are fatal defects. The necessity for certainty in these particulars was fully discussed and passed upon by us heretofo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powers And Boyd Cornice & Roofing Co. v. Muir
... ... Mo.App. 365; Cowie v. Ahrenstedt, 1 Wash. 416; ... Iron Works v. Dorman, 78 Ala. 218; Bedsole v ... Peters, 79 Ala. 133; ... ...
-
Sawyer And Austin Lumber Company v. Clark
... ... defective. Lemly v. LaGrange Iron & Steel Co., 65 ... Mo. 545; Mechanics' Planing Mill Co ... ...
-
Hooven, Owens & Rentschler Co. v. Featherstone
...machinery is to be applied. But that case does not disturb the rule established in Fitzgerald v. Thomas, Fitzpatrick v. Same, and Lemley v. Steel Co., supra, except where the case is brought within the provision of section 6729 of the Revised Statutes. The facts in the Progress Press-Brick ......
-
Cole v. Custer Co. Ag.
...Farenholz, 3 Iowa 84, the description held insufficient was “forty feet of lot No. 2, in block No. 2, in Davenport.” In Lemly v. La Grange Iron & Steel Co., 65 Mo. 545, the description was held insufficient because it described two buildings situated on two different blocks, with a street s......