Palmer v. Tingle

Citation45 N.E. 313,55 Ohio St. 423
PartiesPALMER et al. v. TINGLE. YOUNG v. LION HARDWARE CO.
Decision Date08 December 1896
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio

55 Ohio St. 423
45 N.E. 313

PALMER et al.
v.
TINGLE.
YOUNG
v.
LION HARDWARE CO.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 8, 1896.


Error to circuit court, Putnam county.

Error to circuit court, Clark county.

Separate sections in the common pleas by Palmer & Crawford against William C. Tingle, and by the Lion Hardware Company against L. F. Young, to foreclose mechanics' liens. In the former case there was a judgment for defendant on appeal to the circuit court, and plaintiffs bring error; and in the latter there was a judgment for plaintiff on appeal to the circuit court, and defendant brings error. Affirmed in the former case, and reversed in the latter.

These two cases were heard and determined together. Both cases involve the constitutionality of the mechanic's lien statute, as amended April 13, 1894. In the Putnam county case the contract was made on the 23d day of April, 1894, and was for the repair of Mr. Tingle's house, at the agreed price of $500, which was to be paid by the owner of the house to the contractor, a Mr. McComb, by indorsing and delivering to him two notes held by Mr. Tingle against a man by the name of Vale; and Mr. Tingle did indorse and deliver the two notes, each for the sum of $250, to Mr. McComb, and he received the notes in full payment and satisfaction of the agreed repairs. Mr. McComb purchased materials from Palmer & Crawford, a co-partnership, for the purpose of making the repairs, and the materials were in fact used in the making of said repairs. Mr. McComb fully performed his contract, but failed to pay for the materials, in the sum of $214.87; and thereupon the partnership, within four months, filed an affidavit, in all respects as required by statute, in the office of the recorder of the county, seeking to perfect a lien upon Mr. Tingle's house, and the land upon which it stands. The circuit court, upon appeal, held the statute unconstitutional, and rendered judgment in favor of Mr. Tingle. The partnership filed its petition in error in this court seeking to reverse the judgment of the circuit court. In the Clark county case, Mr. Young made a contract with a Mr. Hollenback on the 29th day of June, 1894, by the terms of which Mr. Hollenback was to furnish the materials and labor, and erect for Mr. Young, upon premises owned by him, a dwelling house, on or before the 1st day of October, 1894, except the foundation, painting, and chimneys, for the sum of $1,925. The payments were to be $300 upon completion of the roof, $300 when ready for plastering, $400 when the plastering should be completed, and the remainder, $925, within 30 days after the completion and acceptance of the house. Mr. Hollenback performed his part of the contract, and Mr. Young accepted the house and paid therefor according to the contract. Mr. Hollenback purchased from the hardware company materials for the completion of the house to the amount of $215.97, which materials were of that value, and were used in the completion of the house. After payment had been made in full for the completion of the house, and within four months after the materials were furnished, the hardware company filed its affidavit, in due form, in the office of the recorder of the county, to perfect a lien upon the house of Mr. Young for the materials so furnished to Mr. Hollenback for the completion of said house. Mr. Young had no notice of the claim for said materials until after the house was completed, accepted, and paid for in full. Upon appeal to the circuit court, it made a finding of facts and rendered a decree in favor of the hardware company. Thereupon Mr. Young filed his petition in error in this court, seeking to reverse the judgment of the circuit court, and asking that judgment be rendered in his favor upon the findings of fact.

Minshall, J., dissenting.



Syllabus by the Court

1. The inalienable right of enjoying liberty and acquiring property, guarantied by the first section of the bill of rights of the constitution, embraces the right to be free in the enjoyment of our faculties, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare.

2. Liberty to acquire property by contract can be restrained by the general assembly only so far as such restraint is for the common welfare and equal protection and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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