McCormack v. Phillips

Decision Date26 May 1887
Citation34 N.W. 39,4 Dakota 506
PartiesMcCormack v. Phillips.
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

Appeal from district court, Minnehaha county; PALMER, Judge.

Action to enforce a mechanic's lien.

Wilkes & Wells and C. H. Winsor, for respondent. S. E. Young and Andrew C. Phillips, per se, for appellant.

FRANCIS J.

This case comes up on appeal from the district court of Minnehaha county, Fourth judicial district. The plaintiff brought his action and filed his complaint for the enforcement of a mechanic's lien, and for other relief. The defendant filed an amended answer, denying that the plaintiff was entitled to his lien, and alleging nothing due to the plaintiff, payment in full, and setting up, by way of counter-claim, damages for bad work done by plaintiff, and also arising from his failure to complete the dwelling-house within the time agreed upon in the contract, etc. Plaintiff replied to counter-claim, denying the same. The case was by stipulation referred by the court to a referee, and tried before him. Then, by another stipulation, the report of the referee was set aside, and the case was, as provided in said stipulation, tried as a jury case, and the jury returned, as their verdict: "We, the jury in the above entitled action, find all the issues herein in favor of the plaintiff and assess his damages at the sum of five hundred and ninety-four and nine one hundredths dollars, including interest to date, and that he is entitled to a lien therefor." Thereupon the court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant for that sum with interest at seven per cent per annum from date of judgment, and for costs; and "further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said plaintiff do have and hold a lien for said sum of money," upon certain lots, and a dwelling-house situated thereon, the same property on which the lien was filed and claimed, and that execution issue to the sheriff directing him to sell said premises to satisfy said lien in the manner provided by law for the sale of real property under execution. The defendant appealed.

The important questions brought up by this appeal, and the views expressed in this opinion, will be the better understood in connection with the complaint, amended answer, reply, and stipulation, which are as follows:

"COMPLAINT.
The plaintiff in his complaint states his cause of action as follows:
(1) That he is by occupation and trade a contractor and builder, and that on or about the third day of April, 1882, he and the defendant, Andrew C. Phillips, entered into an agreement in writing, a copy of which said agreement is hereto attached, marked 'A' and made a part hereof, whereby this plaintiff agreed to furnish the materials and erect for the defendant a certain dwelling-house, according to plans and specifications, which also were then and there agreed upon in writing, and a copy of which is hereto attached, marked 'B,' and made a part hereof.
(2) That after the making of the said contract above mentioned, and about the same date, this plaintiff and defendant entered into other and further verbal agreement, whereby this plaintiff, for and in consideration of the sum of six hundred and thirty dollars to be to plaintiff paid by the defendant, agreed to construct and build, and furnish the materials therefor, a certain barn and outhouse upon the same premises and land with said dwelling-house. And plaintiff further avers that during the progress of the work upon said dwelling-house plaintiff did and performed, at the request of the defendant, certain other work and made certain changes and furnished extra materials on said dwelling-house, all of which were not embodied in nor a part of said written agreement; and the value of said work, changes, and extra materials amounts to the sum of ten hundred and twenty-one and 76-100 dollars, as same will more fully appear by the detailed account thereof hereto attached, marked 'C' and made a part hereof; and the said defendant agreed with the plaintiff to pay him said sum of money above, and in addition to the price agreed upon in said written agreement.
(3) That the plaintiff has on his part duly performed all of his agreements, but the defendant on his part has failed to pay the plaintiff the sum of sixty-four hundred and twenty-one and 76-100 dollars, due to plaintiff for said work, labor, and materials, or any part thereof, except the sum of six hundred and thirty dollars, to apply in payment for said barn and outhouse; and the further sum of twenty-eight hundred and fifty-one and 64-100 dollars, to apply generally upon the amount due for the said work, labor, and materials done and furnished in and upon said dwelling-house; and there is yet due and unpaid to plaintiff, on account thereof, the sum of $2,940.12.
(4) That the lands upon which said dwelling-house is situated are lots Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18, and the north half of lot 14, all in block No. 15, in Bennett's addition to Sioux Falls, in Minnehaha county, Dakota territory, and the defendant was at the time of the making of said agreement and still is the owner thereof.
(5) That on the eighteenth day of January, 1883, this plaintiff, for the purpose of securing a lien upon said premises for the work and materials aforesaid done and furnished, duly filed with the clerk of the district court for Minnehaha county a just and true account of the demand due plaintiff, after allowing all credits, and containing a correct description of the property charged with said lien, and duly verified, a copy of which is hereto attached, marked 'D,' and made a part of this complaint.
(6) That plaintiff has paid the sum of six dollars and fifty cents for drawing and filing the said lien.
Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment for the sum of twenty-nine hundred and forty-six and 62-100 dollars, ($2,946.62,) and that the same be adjudged a lien against the lots and dwelling-house above described.
That the said premises, building, and appurtenances be sold under the decree of this court by the sheriff of Minnehaha county, and that the proceeds of such sale be applied to the payment of said claim of plaintiff, and the costs of this action; and that the plaintiff may have such other and further relief as may to the court seem just and proper."

The contract marked "A," annexed to the complaint, is as follows:

"This agreement, made this third day of April, A. D. 1882, between Andrew C. Phillips and Samuel McCormack, both of Sioux Falls, county of Minnehaha and territory of Dakota, witnesseth that, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: Said McCormack will provide the materials for, forthwith commence and build, without delay or intermission, except from necessities of weather, a house for said Phillips on his lots on the north-west corner block fifteen, in Bennett's addition to Sioux Falls, according to plans, designs, and specifications to be signed by the parties hereto, and deliver said house, completely finished in every respect, ready for occupation, to said Phillips, on or before the first day of September next. No departure from plans or specifications shall be made, unless assented to by said Phillips. Said Phillips may require any alterations in plans or specifications, and, if they involve any change of price, such change of price, if not mutually agreed upon, shall be left to the determination of some person satisfactory to both parties, or, if necessary, to that of three persons, one to be selected by each of said parties, who may select a third referee. Said Phillips may claim any damage from defects or departures from contract not assented to by him, notwithstanding he may have entered into and occupied said house. Said Phillips agrees to pay said McCormack the sum of four thousand seven hundred and seventy dollars in full for his work and materials, as follows: When stone-work is completed, $300; when frame and roof is sheathed, $1,000; when sided and shingled, $400; when building is ready for plastering, $300; when plastered, and chimneys built, $750; when the house is finished, $1,020. Said McCormack may demand from Phillips at any time good and sufficient security for the payment of any or all said sums of money as a condition of the furnishing said materials and the performance of said work; and said Phillips may at any time, as a condition of any or all of said payments, demand from said McCormack good and sufficient security for the furnishing of any of the materials or the performing of any of the work named in the plans and specifications herein referred to, and for indemnity against mechanics' liens.
In witness whereof the said parties have hereto set their hands the day and year first above written.
The words, 'demand from said McCormack,' interlined before signing.

"A. C. PHILLIPS.

"Witness: ARTHUR C. PHILLIPS.

S. MCCORMACK."

The specifications marked "B" are annexed to complaint. Also account marked "C," same as set out in lien claim.

"STIPULATION.
And on the twenty-eighth day of April, 1884, the following stipulation was entered into by and between the plaintiff and defendant: This stipulation, made and entered into this twenty-eighth day of April, A. D. 1884, by and between the parties hereto, witnesseth: (1) That the above cause is hereby referred to Frank L. Boyce, Esq., of Sioux Falls, to hear and determine any or all issues of fact that may arise in this action, and to report his findings of fact to the court within twenty days after the testimony is closed. (2) It is further stipulated that said trial shall commence on the first Monday in June, 1884, and shall continue until tried, under the direction of the said Frank L. Boyce. (3) It is further stipulated that the defendant may have leave
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • MacPherson v. Crum
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1919
    ... ... etc. 77 P. 413; Fernandez v. Burlington, 42 P ... 566; note in 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 831; Bloom, Mechanic's ... Liens, p. 356, P 405; Phillips, Mechanic's Liens, PP 379, ...          GRACE, ... J., concurring in the result. BRONSON, J., dissenting ...           ... The money ... judgment against the defendant for $ 666.46 should be ... approved and affirmed. McCormack ... ...
  • In re Estate of Mattingly
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1936
    ...the parties and the court. 60 C. J. 69. Also, see Rickenberg v. Capitol Garage, 68 Utah 30, 249 P. 121, 50 A.L.R. 1303; McCormack v. Phillips, 4 Dakota 506, 34 N.W. 39; Freeman, Judgments, p. 2764. The California supreme court, in In re Estate of Vance, supra, had before it a claim on a pro......
  • Honstain Brothers Co. v. Linden Investment Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1920
    ...Even though the lien were invalid, a money judgment might be approved and affirmed before this court in such action. McCormack v. Phillips, 4 Dakota 506, 34 N.W. 39; Moher v. Rasmusson, 12 N.D. 71, 74, 95 N.W. Smith v. Gill, 37 Minn. 455, 35 N.W. 178; 27 Cyc. 473. The judgment of the trial ......
  • Workman v. Salzer Lumber Company, a Corp.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 25, 1924
    ... ... the judgment by making the sale and applying the proceeds in ... conformity therewith." In the case of McCormack v ... Phillips, 4 Dakota 506, 34 N.W. 39, the territorial ... court, in construing the above statute, said (page 543): ... "In an action to ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT