Ranson v. Sheehan
Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
Citation | 78 Mo. 668 |
Parties | RANSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. SHEEHAN. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Buchanan Circuit Court.--HON. JOSEPH P. GRUBB, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Graham G. Lacy and Vinton Pike for plaintiff in error.
Franklin Porter for defendant in error.
This is an action to enforce a mechanic's lien; and the matter to be determined depends on the sufficiency of the petition. The original petition was filed August 19, 1875. On September 4, 1876, plaintiff filed an amended petition against Edward Sheehan and his wife Frances, and Charles B. Wilkinson. The amended petition alleged that Edward and Frances were the owners of fifteen and one-half acres of ground described in the petition, and that said Edward had, in 1875, for himself and on account of his wife, and with her full knowledge and consent, and for her immediate use, enjoyment and benefit, entered into a contract with plaintiff to erect, build and complete the brick work of a brick addition, and to furnish red brick and sand and mortar in making other improvements to the one-story brick dwelling with stone basement, owned by said Edward and Frances Sheehan, and situated on their land described in said petition, for which plaintiff was to be paid as set forth in said petition, and that pursuant to said agreement plaintiff furnished material and did the work in making said addition and improvements, all of which amounted to $511.70, upon which plaintiff had been paid the sum of $75, leaving a balance due plaintiff of $436.70; that all of said work was done and materials furnished between April 1 and May 8, 1875, and that the last item of plaintiff's claim was furnished on May 8, 1875. The petition avers that plaintiff duly performed all things on his part as required by his said agreement, and further alleges which said acre of land, so measured, defined and designated, the petition set out in full. It then averred that upon this acre of ground and building and improvements before mentioned, the plaintiff claims a lien for the amount aforesaid for the work and material furnished; that the account accrued and became due and payable on May 8th, 1875, when payment was demanded and refused.
The defendants failing to answer said petition, their default was duly entered, and at the January term, 1877, the cause coming on to be heard upon an inquiry of damages, the plaintiff introduced evidence proving that he had performed the work and furnished the material charged in his petition upon the building described in the petition, and that said building is the only one on said fifteen-acre tract, and that the work and materials were reasonably worth the amount charged in the petition. Upon this evidence and upon the statements of the petition not denied, plaintiff submitted the cause.
Thereupon the defendant read in evidence the account and statement filed in the clerk's office, upon which plaintiff claimed his mechanic's lien which is as follows:
ST. JOSEPH, MO., August 18, 1875.
(It mized Statement)
To balance |
$436 70
After setting forth the itemized account under the above heading, the statement follows that it is a just and true account of the demand due plaintiff, after all just credits are given, for materials furnished and work done in erecting an addition to the one-story brick dwelling house with one basement situated on the fifteen and one-half acre tract of land, which is described as in the petition, and that the work was done and materials furnished between a day in April and May 8, 1875, the last labor being performed on the last named date; that Frances and Edward were together the owners of said real estate, and that said Edward for himself and for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moller-Vandenboom Lbr. Co. v. Boudreau
...of the statute to entitle him to decree or judgment subordinating to his lien the prior lien of the mortgage or deed of trust. Rauson v. Sheehan, 78 Mo. 668; 18 R.C.L., "Mechanic's Liens," 877-879; 40 C.J. 53, Sec. 14 (Mechanic's Liens); Landau v. Cottrill, 60 S.W. 64, 65, 66; Coe v. Ritter......
-
Moller-Vandenboom Lumber Co. v. Boudreau
...of the statute to entitle him to decree or judgment subordinating to his lien the prior lien of the mortgage or deed of trust. Rauson v. Sheehan, 78 Mo. 668; 18 C. L., "Mechanic's Liens," 877-879; 40 C. J. 53, Sec. 14 (Mechanic's Liens); Landau v. Cottrill, 60 S.W. 64, 65, 66; Coe v. Ritter......
-
Hertel Elec. Co. v. Gabriel, 7452
...494. 2 And, a number of cases indicate that, where the rights of innocent third parties have not intervened [contrast Ranson v. Sheehan, 78 Mo. 668, 673(2)] and the property description in the lien claim or original petition is inaccurate but (as in the instant case) embraces the land on wh......
-
Banner Lumber Co. v. Robson
...not concerned with the rights of third parties, in which case a stricter rule may be applied. [See DeWitt v. Smith, 63 Mo. 263; Ranson v. Sheehan, 78 Mo. 668; Bros. v. McCrary, 45 Mo.App. 365.] Here the owner's husband and agent looked to the erection of the buildings, ordered material from......