Meyer v. Hornby
Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
Citation | 101 U.S. 728,25 L.Ed. 1078 |
Parties | MEYER v. HORNBY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. James Grant and Mr. Joseph H. Choate for the appeallants.
Mr. James. T. Lane for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. Appellants, as trustees in a railroad mortgage, brought suit to foreclose it, and made Hornby a defendant. He set up a claim to a mechanic's lien, which was allowed. The mortgagor and owner of the road was the Davenport and St. Paul Railroad Company, incorporated to build a road from Davenport, in Iowa, to St. Paul, in Minnesota. The mortgage, executed May 16, 1872, embraced the entire line of road, and all present and afteracquired property therewith connected. The route was surveyed from Davenport to St. Paul, and work some three miles out from the city of Davenport was commenced and prosecuted in the direction of St. Paul, until about forty-eight miles were completed. When this work was begun, the part of the road surveyed in Scott County, from Davenport to Pine Hill Cemetery, included a difficult and expensive ascent from the river-bottom on which the town is mainly situated, to the prairie land above the bluff. Its construction was for this reason delayed, and a temporary running arrangement made with another company, by which the cars from the country came into the the city. The work on that piece of road was, however, commenced on a contract with Hornby, of date of Oct. 9, 1872, and finished prior to the first day of November, 1873. On the 28th of that month he filed his claim for a mechanic's lien in the proper court. The mortgage wasrecorded in that county, Dec. 24, 1872, but Hornby knew of its existence when he made the contract under which he claims his lien.
Two objections are taken to this lien. One of them is that Hornby himself was a stockholder in the Davenport Railway Construction Company, a corporation which placed the bonds secured by appellants' mortgage on the market, and which gave a guaranty that the local subscriptions and grants should be sufficient to prepare the road for the re eption of the rails, and undertook to make good any deficiency in such local aid. Six gentlemen also signed an agreement to be personally bound to make good the guaranty of the construction company. Hornby was not one of them, and it is not charged that he ever made any personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
... ... holdings of all the courts, is subject to mechanics' ... liens. (Brooks v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 101 ... U.S. 443, 25 L.Ed. 1057; Meyer v. Hornby, 101 U.S ... 728, 25 L.Ed. 1078, see, also, Rose's U. S. Notes; ... Midland Ry. Co. v. Wilcox, 122 Ind. 84, 23 N.E. 506; ... Farmers' ... ...
-
Beach v. Wakefield
... ... Neilson v. Railway Co. 44 Iowa 71; Brooks v ... Railway Co. 101 U.S. 443, 25 L.Ed. 1057; Meyer v ... Hornby , 101 U.S. 728, 25 L.Ed. 1078. The articles of ... incorporation of the Terminal Company provide that it may ... also construct ... ...
-
National Foundry & Pipe Works v. Oconto Water Co.
...are examples, and can only be dealt with as an entirety. Gue v. Canal Co., 24 How. 257; Brooks v. Railway Co., 101 U.S. 443, 451; Meyer v. Hornby, 101 U.S. 728; Hammock v. Co., 105 U.S. 77; Improvement Co. v. Wood, 81 Wis. . . ., 51 N.W. 1004; Fond du Lac Water Co. v. City of Fond du Lac, 8......
-
Western Const. Co., Inc. v. Austin, 27828.
... ... The nature of the action is essentially one for ... damages for breach of contract. Noyes v. Adams, 76 ... Wash. 412, 136 P. 696; Meyer v. Hornby, 101 U.S ... 728, 25 L.Ed. 1078. The amount of the guarantor's ... liability is to be determined by the contract of guaranty ... ...
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...Gordon, 73 U.S. 561, 572 (1867) (determining the property to which a lien attached under a California statute). See also Meyer v. Hornby, 101 U.S. 728 (1879) (following the holding in Brooks , 101 U.S. 443). 44. Springer Land Ass’n v. Ford, 168 U.S. 513 (1897). 45. See, e.g. , Kneeland v. L......