Roman v. Thorn

• Decision Date: 21 February 1888
• Parties: ROMAN v. THORN ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 759

83 Ala. 443

ROMAN v. THORN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 21, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; JOHN P. HUBBARD Judge.

This was an action brought by the appellees, Thorn & Gorrie against the appellant, Sigmund Roman, individually; and as agent of the Guggenheim estate; and, as stated in the complaint, sought to enforce a statutory lien on some property on which work had been done, said property being alleged to have been property belonging to the said Guggenheim estate. The defendant demurred to the complaint and assigned, among the other grounds of demurrer, that the complaint failed to show that the defendant was an owner of the property sought to be held responsible for the work done thereon, or an owner of any part thereof; that it does not show that defendant was any authorized agent of the owners of said property to make any contract with the plaintiffs; that it does not show that any contract was ever entered into between the defendant and the plaintiffs for the work which was done on the building sought to be subjected to the lien and that the complaint seeks to enforce a lien on the said property for work done thereon, when, as alleged in the account filed, and made a part of the complaint, the work was done and performed for the defendant as agent of the Guggenheim estate. The court overruled the demurrers of the defendant, and the defendant excepted. The facts as disclosed by the bill of exceptions are that the defendant, as agent of the Guggenheim estate, in which his wife was interested leased to Pollak & Co. a store-house in Montgomery for a term of years, under an agreement that Pollak should make certain improvements on the property. The said Pollak entered into a contract with the plaintiffs, who were builders, to make the needed repairs. The defendant was interested in and had control of the store-house south of and adjoining the piece of property leased to Pollak. In the course of the construction of the improvements to be done by Pollak, the plaintiffs were about to put some joists on the walls of this building south of the one which Pollak had leased, and which the defendant controlled, and had an interest in. The defendant, Roman, objected to the joists being put upon his wall until it was strengthened, and thereupon Pollak's agent directed the necessary work to be done, and a part of it was done by the plaintiffs; and for this work so done ...