Mammoth Min Co v. Salt Lake Foundry Mach Co
| Decision Date | 29 January 1894 |
| Docket Number | No. 181,181 |
| Citation | 151 U.S. 447,14 S.Ct. 384,38 L.Ed. 229 |
| Parties | MAMMOTH MIN. CO. v. SALT LAKE FOUNDRY & MACH. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER:
Taylor and another brought suit against the Mammoth Mining Company in the district court of the first judicial district of Utah territory to foreclose a mechanic's lien under the statute of Utah in that behalf; and the Salt Lake Foundry & Machine Company, having been made a party defendant, filed its cross complaint therein against its codefendant, the Mammoth Mining Company, for the enforcement of a similar lien for materials furnished and work done in and about the construction of certain buildings of the mining company, and situated on its land and premises. The Mammoth Mining Company did not deny that the materials were furnished and the work done, but insisted that this was not under any contract between it and the foundry company, or at its request. The cause was heard by the court without a jury, which made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
'(1) That at all the times hereinafter stated the said Salt Lake Foundry and Machine Company and the said Mammoth Mining Company were corporations, organized and existing under the laws of Utah Territory.
'(2) That on the ___ day of January, A. D. 1883, the said Salt Lake Foundry and Machine Company contracted with the said Mammoth Mining Company, through its agents, to furnish to said Mammoth Mining Company castings, to construct and repair machinery at current prices, and to do other work within the scope of said machine company's business, all of which was to be used and was used by the said mining company in the erection and construction of the refineries, mills, brickkilns, and smelters of the said defendant mining company, which said refineries, mills, brickkilns, and smelters were situate upon the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section twenty-one, (21,) and the northwest quarter of section twenty-two, (22,) in township eleven (11) south, of range three (3) west of Salt Lake meridian, in Juab county, Utah.
'(3) That, in pursuance of said contract, the said foundry and machine company from time to time from ___ day of January, A. D. 1883, until the 26th day of March, A. D. 1883, furnished castings, made and repaired machinery, worked for and furnished material to the said Mammoth Mining Company to be used in the construction of the buildings, etc., above referred to, at the special instance and request of said company.
'(4) That the total value of the materials furnished and work done so as aforesaid was thirty-six hundred and six and 4-100 dollars at the prices agreed upon between the said mining company and the said foundry and machine company.
'(5) That no part of said sum has been paid excepting the sum of five hundred (500) dollars, and the balance thereof, to wit, the sum of $3,106.04 dollars remains due and unpaid, together with interest thereon at the rate of ten (10) per cent. per annum from the said 26th day of March, A. D. 1883.
'(6) That on the 27th day of March, A. D. 1883, the said Salt Lake Foundry and Machine Company caused to be recorded in the office of the county recorder of Juab county, Utah, their claim for a lien on the premises above described, containing a statement of its demand after deducting all just credits and offsets, with the name of the owner, to wit, the said Mammoth Mining Company, and a statement of the time given, terms and conditions of the contract, and a description of the premises sought to be charged with the lien; the facts stated in said notice of lien being in all respects the facts set forth in the foregoing findings of facts.
'(7) That this action was brought to foreclose said lien within the time allowed by law for that purpose.
'From the above findings of facts the court finds the following conclusions of law:
'(1) That the said Salt Lake Foundry and Machine Company is entitled to a judgment against the said Mammoth Mining Company in the sum of three thousand one hundred and six and 4-100 ($3,106.04) dollars, with interest thereon from March 26, 1883, at the rate of ten per cent. per annum, amounting in all to the sum of five thousand and eleven and 54-100 ($5,011.54) dollars, and for costs of this suit, and that execution issue therefor.
'(2) That said Salt Lake Foundry and Machine Company is also entitled to a decree establishing the said judgment as a lien upon the premises mentioned in the complaint and findings heretofore filed, and foreclosing the same according to the law and practlce of this court.'
Decree having been entered accordingly, the case was carried by appeal to the supreme court of the territory, where errors were assigned to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lahman v. Burnes Nat. Bank
...also laid down in Hinckley v. Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Co., 121 U. S. 264, 7 S. Ct. 875, 30 L. Ed. 967; Mammoth Mining Co. v. Salt Lake Co., 151 U. S. 447, 14 S. Ct. 384, 38 L. Ed. 229; Dorsheimer v. Glenn (C. C. A.) 51 F. 404; Vera Cruz Co. v. Waddell et al. (C. C. A.) 155 F. 401. In the ......
-
Seymour Improvement Co. v. Viking Sprinkler Co.
...by the improper evidence, or where the appellant was harmed by the improper evidence. Thus, in Mammoth Mining Co. v. Salt Lake, etc., Co., 151 U. S. 447, 14 S. Ct. 384, 38 L. Ed. 229, it was held that where the evidence objected to was cumulative in its character and not of controlling impo......
-
Seymour Improvement Company v. Viking Sprinkler Company
... ... Thus, in Mammoth Mining Co. v. Salt Lake, etc., ... Co. (1894), 151 U.S ... ...
-
Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. People's Bank of Sanford
...decree. Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U. S. 468, 476, 16 S. Ct. 1064, 1067 41 L. Ed. 230." See, also, Mammoth Mining Co. v. Salt Lake Foundry & Machine Co., 151 U. S. 447, 14 S. Ct. 384, 38 L. Ed. 229; Howells State Bank v. Novotny (C. C. A. 8th) 69 F.(2d) 32; Kaffanges v. New York Life Ins. Co. (C......