Siegmund v. Kellogg-Mackay-Cameron Co.

Decision Date29 May 1906
Docket NumberNo. 5,502.,5,502.
Citation38 Ind.App. 95,77 N.E. 1096
PartiesSIEGMUND v. KELLOGG-MACKAY-CAMERON CO.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kosciusko County; Lemuel W. Royse, Judge.

Action by the Kellogg-Mackay-Cameron Company against John F. J. Siegmund. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. W. Watkins, for appellant. Vail & Wehmeyer, for appellee.

BLACK, J.

The appellee sued the appellant to foreclose a materialman's lien on certain real estate. The appellant's demurrer to the complaint for want of sufficient facts was overruled. After averments showing the appellant's ownership of the real estate described in the county wherein the cause was commenced, it was alleged that the appellant, December 1, 1900, was erecting thereon a new hotel building, and on or about that date contracted with Charles H. Maloney and Edward Collins, partners doing business under the firm name of Maloney & Collins, to erect, construct, and install a heating plant in and as a part of that building, and to do the plumbing, gas-fitting, piping, and draining in and as a part of the building, for which he agreed to pay said partners $1,200, Maloney & Collins to furnish all necessary material therefor; that on or about December 22, 1900, Maloney & Collins and the appellee entered into a contract by which the latter was to furnish the material for this work in that house, to be used by Maloney & Collins in its construction; that from this date, and divers dates thereafter until January 4, 1901, in pursuance of said agreement, the appellee furnished radiators, piping, heaters, fittings, and supplies, and other material for the construction of said work in and as a part of said building, of the value of $486.23, a bill of particulars of which was filed with the complaint and made part thereof, which material, it was alleged, was used by Maloney & Collins in the construction of the building. It was further alleged that March 2, 1901, and less than 60 days after the material was furnished, the appellee filed, in the office of the recorder of that county, his written notice of his intention to hold a lien, etc., which was on that date recorded in, etc.; the notice being made an exhibit. Other averments need not be recited for the purposes of our decision of the cause.

The notice of claim of lien filed in the recorder's office and exhibited with the complaint was signed in the name of the appellee by a certain attorney. This was a sufficient signing. Jeffersonville, etc., Co. v. Riter, 146 Ind. 521, 45 N. E. 697. In the portion of the notice purporting to state for what the lien for a specified amount was claimed, it proceeded as follows: “For work and labor done and materials furnished by us in the erection and construction of said house,” etc. It was not necessary to state in the notice that the lien was claimed for the installation of a heating plant, or to state more particularly for what the lien was claimed. If it be the intention of counsel in referring to this portion of the notice to criticise the complaint upon the ground that a lien may not be had for materials furnished for the installation of a heating plant in a hotel as a part of the building, as described in the complaint, we cannot agree with such a construction of our s...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Beach v. Huntsman
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 30, 1908
    ...but it is immaterial, in the absence of statutory requirement, whether such contract be verbal or written. Siegmund v. Kellogg, etc., Co., 38 Ind. App. 95, 98, 77 N. E. 1096;Great Western Mfg. Co. v. Hunter, 15 Neb. 32, 16 N. W. 759; Jones on Liens, § 1236. The complaint averred a contract,......
  • Voorhees v. Cragan
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 10, 1916
    ...A. (N. S.) 425;Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Higgs, 165 Ind. 694, 702-705, 76 N. E. 299, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1081;Seigmund v. Kellogg, etc., Co., 38 Ind. App. 95, 98, 77 N. E. 1096;Beach v. Huntsman, 42 Ind. App. 205, 210, 211, 85 N. E. 523. Finding no reversible error in the record the judgme......
  • Voorhees v. Cragun
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 10, 1916
    ... ... (N.S.) 425; ... Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Higgs (1906), ... 165 Ind. 694, 702, 705, 76 N.E. 299, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1081; ... Siegmund v. Kellogg-Mackay-Cameron Co ... (1906), 38 Ind.App. 95, 98, 77 N.E. 1096; Beach v ... Huntsman ... ...
  • Beach v. Huntsman
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 13, 1908
    ...but it is immaterial, in the absence of statutory requirement, whether such contract be verbal or written. Siegmund v. Kellogg, etc., Co., 38 Ind. App. 95, 98, 77 N. E. 1096;Great Western Mfg. Co. v. Hunter, 15 Neb. 32, 16 N. W. 759; Jones on Liens, § 1236. The complaint averred a contract,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT