Livermore v. Wright
| Decision Date | 31 October 1862 |
| Citation | 33 Mo. 31 |
| Parties | HEBER LIVERMORE et al., Respondents, v. HENRY H. WRIGHT et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Iron Circuit Court.
Garesché & Farish, for respondents.
John W. Noell, for appellants.
This was a suit to enforce a mechanic's lien. The plaintiffs furnished Wright materials for the erection of a dwelling house, and also for the erection of a kitchen to be attached to the house. The contest between the parties was whether all the materials so furnished constituted one demand and lien.
The dwelling house was built. The kitchen has not been built. The materials for the dwelling house were furnished first, and Wright gave his note for their price. The materials for the kitchen were delivered afterward, and, Wright having died, they were not used in the building, but were still lying on the premises when this suit was brought. The lien was filed more than ninety days after the materials for the dwelling house were delivered, but less than ninety days after the materials for the kitchen were delivered.
There was evidence tending to show that Wright contracted with the plaintiffs for all the materials for dwelling house and kitchen at the same time, but wished the materials for the dwelling house to be delivered first, that he might have the use of the house quickly.
Instructions were prayed by both parties and refused by the court, but the defendants took no exceptions to the refusal of the instructions prayed by them. The court on its own motion gave the following instructions, to which the defendants excepted:
1. The court instructs the jury that if they find that the several items of the plaintiffs' account for material furnished Henry Wright, deceased, were furnished by the plaintiffs under one contract, and that the account thereof was filed with the clerk within ninety days after the date of the last item, they will find a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount of their account.
2. But if they find that the last items of account were not furnished under the same contract under which the first item was furnished, and that more than ninety days had elapsed after the date of the first item before the account was filed with the clerk, then they will disallow the said first item as any proper lien on the building.
3. The court further instructs the jury that although the plaintiffs to entitle themselves to their verdict must satisfy them that the several items of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schroeter Bros. Hdw. Co. v. Gymnastic Assn., 30782.
...Mill Co. v. Allison, 71 Mo. App. 258; Cahil, Collins & Co. v. Orphans' School, 63 Mo. App. 33; Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 Mo. 271; Livermore v. Wright, 33 Mo. 31; Floreth v. McReynolds, 205 Mo. App. 143; Darlington Lumber Co. v. Harris, 107 Mo. App. 148; Gauss v. Hussmann, 22 Mo. App. 115; Brun......
-
Sidway v. Missouri Land & Live Stock Company, Limited
...Gibson v. Jenkins, 97 Mo.App. 36; Carson v. Steamboat, 16 Mo. 256; Austin v. Stine, 9 Mo. 558; Bambrick v. Bambrick, 157 Mo. 423; Livermore v. Wright, 33 Mo. 31; Moore Renick, 95 Mo.App. 209; Waldron v. Alexander, 35 Ill.App. 319; O'Brien v. Sexton, 140 Ill. 517; Littler v. Smiley, 9 Ind. 1......
-
Schroeter Bros. Hardware Co. v. Croatian Sokol'' Gymnastic Ass'n
...Mill Co. v. Allison, 71 Mo.App. 258; Cahil, Collins & Co. v. Orphans' School, 63 Mo.App. 33; Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 Mo. 271; Livermore v. Wright, 33 Mo. 31; Floreth McReynolds, 205 Mo.App. 143; Darlington Lumber Co. v. Harris, 107 Mo.App. 148; Gauss v. Hussmann, 22 Mo.App. 115; Bruns v. Bra......
-
Banner Lumber Co. v. Robson
...... testimony in the case shows that P. O'Malley purchased. the last two items on his own account. Miller v. Hoffman, 26 Mo.App. 199; Livermore v. Wright,. 33 Mo. 31; Gauss v. Hussman, 22 Mo.App. 119;. Schulenburg v. Vrooman, 7 Mo.App. 133; Allen v. Trumet, Etc., 73 Mo. 688; Darlington v. ......