Roose v. Billingsly

• Decision Date: 08 March 1888
• Parties: ROOSE ET AL. v. BILLINGSLY ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

74 Iowa 51

36 N.W. 885

ROOSE ET AL.

v.BILLINGSLY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 8, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Mills county; A. B. THORNELL, Judge.

Roose & Wainwright brought a suit in equity against McGregor Bros. and Billingsly & Nanson Commission Company, for the enforcement of a mechanic's lien for materials furnished in the construction of the buildings sought to be charged. McGregor Bros. were primarily liable for the price of the materials, and the court entered judgment against them for the amount due on the account. The other defendants were subsequent purchasers of the property, and the district court refused to enforce the lien, and plaintiffs appealed.W. S. Lewis, for appellants.

C. S. Keenan, for appellees.

REED, J.

The following is the description of the property contained in the statement filed with the clerk for the purpose of preserving the lien: “Thirty lengths of corn-cribbing at Mills station, Pottawattamie county, Iowa; five lengths of corn-cribbing at Mineola, Iowa; fourteen lengths of corn-cribbing at Silver City, Iowa; elevator office and fifteen lengths corn-cribbing at Malvern, Iowa; office and twenty-seven lengths of cribbing at Lawrence, except the part owned by J. B. Mears; ten lengths of cribbing at Solomon, Iowa. All at said stations along the Wabash railway.” Plaintiffs proved that they furnished the materials under a contract with McGregor Bros., but did not prove that the latter had any interest in or right to the real estate upon which the buildings were erected. Nor did they prove upon what particular real estate the buildings were situated. The defendant, the Billingsly & Nanson Company, purchased the property within 20 days after the last item of materials was furnished, and a number of other items were also purchased within that time. But there was no proof as to which of the buildings those items went into, and the greater part of the materials was delivered more than 90 days before the purchase, and the statement for the liens was not filed until after the purchase. We are of the opinion that plaintiffs have failed to make a case entitling them to a foreclosure of the lien.

1. The description of the property in the statement is not sufficient. The statute (Code, § 2133) provides that the statement must contain a correct description of the property to be charged. The description “thirty-lengths of corn-cribbing at Mills station” is too indefinite. Such a description in the judgment...