Moore v. Vaughn
| Decision Date | 09 November 1894 |
| Citation | 42 Neb. 696,60 N.W. 914 |
| Parties | MOORE ET AL. v. VAUGHN ET AL. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. The mechanic's lien law of this state requires that a contract for material, labor, etc., for an improvement on real estate shall be made with the owner thereof, or his agent; and a tenant of real estate, because of his tenancy, is not the agent of his landlord, in such a sense as to render the latter, or his real estate, liable for materials furnished the tenant, and used by him in erecting improvements on such real estate. Waterman v. Stout, 56 N. W. 987, 38 Neb. 396, reaffirmed.
2. A landlord leased his premises to a tenant for one year, with the privilege of re-leasing for another year at the end of the term. The tenant, during his lease, moved a dwelling house belonging to his landlord, and standing upon other land of his, upon the leased premises, and permanently affixed it to the land. He then made contracts with certain material men, in and by which they furnished him material which he used in repairing, and building additions to, the dwelling house moved upon the leased premises. In a suit brought by the material men against him, in which they claimed liens upon the premises for the material furnished to and used by him in the erection of such improvements, the court decreed that the improvements on said real estate should be sold to pay and discharge the claims of the material men against the tenant. Held: (1) That when the dwelling house was moved upon the leased premises, and fixed to the land, it became a part thereof, and that the court was without authority to order said dwelling house and additions severed, and sold to pay the claims of the material men. (2) That the material men, by furnishing material to the tenant for the erection of improvements on the leased premises, acquired liens against the tenant's interest only in said premises.
Appeal from district court, Harlan county; Gaslin, Judge.
Action by Moore & Mudgett against George C. Vaughn and others. From the judgment, Herman W., Sarah A., and George C. Vaughn appeal. Reversed.R. L. Keester, for appellants.
C. C. Flansburg and J. G. Thompson, for appellees.
The material facts in this case are: That on April 1, 1890, Sarah A. Vaughn was the owner in fee of the N. E. 1/4 of section 17, township 4 N., and range 17 W. of the sixth P. M., and on said date leased said premises to one George C. Vaughn for a term of one year. By the terms of the lease, Vaughn was to pay, as rent for said premises, $67.50, and had the privilege, at the expiration of the lease, to lease for another year on the same terms. During the year 1890, George C. Vaughn moved a small dwelling belonging to Sarah A. Vaughn to the leased premises, and fixed it permanently to the land. And in said year 1890 Moore & Mudgett, Cross & Johnson, and E. L. Clark, in pursuance of contracts made by them with George C. Vaughn, furnished him certain material for the purpose of, and used by George C. Vaughn in, repairing the house he had moved of Sarah A. Vaughn's to the leased premises, and in building additions to said house. In November, 1890, George C. Vaughn and wife mortgaged all their interest in said leased premises to one Herman W. Vaughn, to secure the payment of a note of $300 and interest, held by said Herman W. Vaughn, and executed by said George C. Vaughn. Moore & Mudgett brought this suit to the district court of Harlan county, against the said George C. Vaughn and his wife, making Herman W. Vaughn, the said E. L. Clark, Sarah A. Vaughn, and said Cross & Johnson, parties defendant to the action. In the petition of Moore & Mudgett, they set out that in the year 1890 they made a verbal agreement with George C. Vaughn to furnish him certain hardware for the erection of a dwelling house on the above-described real estate; that they furnished the hardware in pursuance of the agreement, and that the same was used in the construction of a dwelling house on said land; that, within four months from the date of the furnishing of said hardware, they made an account in writing of the items of such hardware, made oath thereto, and filed the same in the office of the recorder of deeds of Harlan county, claiming a mechanic's lien on the above-described real estate, and the buildings thereon. They also alleged that at the time of making said contract with George C. Vaughn, and furnishing him the hardware, he was in possession of, and was the owner of, the above-described real estate; that there was due them the sum of $71.20, with 7 per cent. interest thereon from October 23, 1891,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larson v. Henriksen
...but simply has a qualified interest in the property, which entitles him to the use of it for his own benefit." See also Moore v. Vaughn, 42 Neb. 698, 60 N.W. 914, where it is held that a lessee is not the agent of a A lessee is in no sense superintendent of the lessor in the management of t......
-
Larson v. Henriksen
...has a qualified interest in the property, which entitles him to the use of it for his own benefit.” See, also, Moore et al. v. Vaughn, et al., 42 Neb. 698, 60 N. W. 914, where it is held that a lessee is not the agent of a lessor. A lessee is in no sense superintendent of the lessor in the ......
- Moore v. Vaughn