Reed v. Estes
| Decision Date | 20 May 1904 |
| Parties | REED v. ESTES et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Shelby County; F. H. Heiskell, Chancellor.
Suit by Frank M. Reed against Mrs. Lizzie G. Estes and others. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Reversed in part, and affirmed in part.
R. M. Heath and W. A. Buckner, for appellants. Robert B. Goodwin, for appellee.
This bill was brought to enforce a mechanic's lien claimed by complainant to exist in his favor upon the fee in the real estate therein described, the property of the defendant Mrs. Estes, for a portion of the debt due him from her codefendants Mallalieu & True, and upon a leasehold estate in the same property held by the latter under a lease, made them by Mrs. Estes for a term of years, for the remainder of it.
Complainant had no contract with Mrs. Estes or her agent to make the improvements for which the debt sued for is due. His contract was solely with Mallalieu & True, the lessees. Mrs. Estes' only connection with the improvements was an agreement made by her with her lessees allowing them to make the improvements, and agreeing to contribute $1,000 towards the cost of the same, which she has done.
The statute creating the lien claimed in this case (Shannon's Code, § 3531) confines it to cases where the contractor making the improvements has a special contract with the owner of the property upon which it is made or his agent.
The facts of this case do not bring it within this statute. Complainant did not contract with the owner or her agent. By his contract with the lessees he did not become the creditor of Mrs. Estes, or acquire any lien upon her property. A lessee cannot, without special authority to do so, create an indebtedness against the lessor or incumber his property for improvements. The bill must fail to this extent.
Relief against the leasehold estate is resisted upon the contention that the sale sought in this cause would be in effect an assignment of it without the consent of the lessor, which is prohibited by the terms of the lease.
The provision of that instrument relied upon is this:
"The property to be occupied and used as a saloon and residence * * * the second party agrees that they will not underlet the whole or any part of said premises without the written consent of the first party, or her assigns, and in case of underletting, without authority, this lease may be declared forfeited by said party at her option * * * and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGuinn v. Federated Mines & Milling Company
...304; Stenberg v. Liennemann, 52 P. 84, 63 Am. St. Rep. 636; Beehler v. Ijams, 72 Md. 193, 19 A. 646; Moore v. Vaughn, 60 N.W. 914; Reed v. Estes, 80 S.W. 1086; Meade Plumbing v. Irwin, 109 N.W. 391; Carter v. Keeton, 71 S.E. 554.] On the other hand, the rule is very generally recognized and......
-
McGuinn v. Federated Mines & Milling Co.
...52 Pac. 84, 63 Am. St. Rep. 636; Beehler v. Ijams, 72 Md. 193, 19 Atl. 646; Moore v. Vaughn, 42 Neb. 696, 60 N. W. 914; Reed v. Estes, 113 Tenn. 200, 80 S. W. 1086; Meade Plumbing Co. v. Irwin, 77 Neb. 385, 109 N. W. 391; Carter v. Keeton (Va.) 71 S. E. On the other hand, the rule is very g......
-
Hussmann Refrigeration, Inc. v. South Pittsburgh Associates
...where the contractor or material supplier has failed to demonstrate that an agency relationship exists. In Reed v. Estes, 113 Tenn. 200, 202, 80 S.W. 1086, 1086 (1904), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a lien would not attach to the lessor's interest because the lease did not require t......
-
Murphy v. Reynolds
...to transfer the whole interest of the Lessee in the term without the retention by him of any reversion. 32 Am.Jur. 298. Reed v. Estes, 113 Tenn. 200, 80 S.W. 1086; Brummitt Tire Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co. et al., 18 Tenn.App. 270, 75 S.W.2d Bearing in mind the weight to be accorded a Chan......