Rust Sash & Door Co. v. Bryant
Decision Date | 09 January 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 19303.,19303. |
Citation | 124 S.W.2d 544 |
Parties | RUST SASH & DOOR CO. v. BRYANT et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Allen C. Southern, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Mechanic's lien proceeding by the Rust Sash & Door Company against the Gate City Building Corporation and others, wherein T. D. Bryant intervened. From an adverse judgment, the intervener appealed to the Supreme Court, 114 S.W.2d 1023, which transferred the cause to the Kansas City Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
Glenn R. Donaldson, of Kansas City, for appellant.
George K. Brasher and Wright, Rogers & Margolin, all of Kansas City, for respondents.
This is an appeal, by a mechanic's lien claimant, from a decree disallowing his lien. The appeal was lodged in the Supreme Court, but that court held it had no jurisdiction and transferred the cause here. See Rust Sash & Door Company v. Gate City Building Corp., et al., 114 S.W. 2d 1023, 1024.
In its opinion, holding that it had no jurisdiction of the appeal, the Supreme Court made a statement of facts, which we adopt and make some additions thereto. The statement by the Supreme Court reads as follows:
It might be further stated that the character of the contract entered into between Bryant and the Gate City Building Corporation was "to complete concrete frame work" of the building for a lump sum of $75,000. It appears that the plaintiff and 15 other lien claimants were granted claims amounting to about $48,000 and that the Chancellor, in deciding that the appellant was entitled to a money judgment, expressly found "that all other issues herein should be found against said T. D. Bryant and that he is not entitled to have his claim for a mechanic's lien herein sustained." In this court it is claimed by respondents that there is nothing before us to show that the filing of the mechanic's lien account was in due time.
The cross-bill of appellant describes the mechanic's lien statement and its filing in apt terms. It also sets forth the items of the account, which included certain items alleged, in the cross-bill, to be for extra work. It states that the account was shown by an itemized statement attached to the cross-bill, "marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof."
The court, in its decree found, among other things, that the building corporation and its trustees had made default in not appearing in the cause or filing any pleading therein.
It appears that there has been filed, in this court, a motion to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment.
The appellant has filed a motion to discharge all respondents in the case, except the original owner of the premises and the bondholders under the deed of trust, on the ground that, after the appeal reached this court a sale was had foreclosing the mechanics' liens of the 16 parties to the action whose liens were allowed and, consequently, the said respondents have no further interest in the litigation.
It would appear that the appeal was taken without supersedeas which has resulted in the sale aforesaid. The motion must be overruled for the reason that, if the cause were reversed, the said 16 respondents would be obligated to make restitution to appellant. It is apparent that any restitution would be at the expense of these respondents, because the amount of their decrees, or of their respective interests in the proceeds of the sale, would be reduced to the extent that appellant's claim would be allowed. Berry v. Equitable Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 317 Mo. 1119, 298 S.W. 63; Shields v. Powers, 29 Mo. 315, 317; Jones v. Hart, 60 Mo. 362, 364, 365; Hurst Automatic Switch etc. v. Trust Co. of St. Louis, 291 Mo. 54, 236 S.W. 58; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 327 Mo. 115, 34 S.W.2d 85. The motion is overruled.
In this connection we may say that appellant's contention that said respondents have no interest in this appeal, regardless of whether there had been any foreclosure sale prior to the determination of the appeal and the final determination of the case, is without merit.
Plaintiff contends that the Chancellor, having found that the apartment was constructed in accordance with the plans, specification and contract, as far as could be done, to the point where the owner stopped the work and, having further found that the sum asked for in appellant's lien claim and in his cross-bill, was due; that the account was approved by the agent of the building company and thereby became an "account stated" and that the Chancellor, having given a personal judgment for the amount with interest, he erred in not allowing appellant's claim as a lien. It is further insisted by the appellant th...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Rust Sash & Door Co. v. Bryant
-
Gonseth v. K & K Oil Co.
......No. R--1 of Christian County, Mo.App., 258 S.W.2d 258, 259(1); Rust Sash & Door Co. v. Bryant, Mo.App., 124 S.W.2d 544, 547(4)) and proof ......
-
Service Const. Co. v. Nichols
......v. Thomas, Mo.App., 353 S.W.2d 130, 135[2-4]; Rust Sash and Door Co. v. Bryant, Mo.App., 124 S.W.2d 544, 549[12, 13]; and ......
-
Lasich v. Wimpenney
...... In Rust Sash and Door Company v. Bryant, Mo.App., 124 S.W.2d 544, 549, also a ......