St. Croix Lumber Co. v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 06 January 1894
• Citation: St. Croix Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 4 S.D. 487, 57 N.W. 236 (S.D. 1894)
• Parties: ST. CROIX LUMBER CO. v. MITCHELL et al.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

4 S.D. 487

57 N.W. 236

ST. CROIX LUMBER CO.

v.MITCHELL et al.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Jan. 6, 1894.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A question decided by the supreme court on a former appeal becomes the law of the case in all its stages, and will not ordinarily be reversed upon a second appeal of the same case, when the facts are substantially the same.

2. The same rule applies where the former decision was made by the late territorial supreme court, this court being the successor of that court.

3. A record on a former appeal in the same action may be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining what facts and questions were before the court, so as to see the proper application of the rule that such decision is the law of the case.

Appeal from circuit court, Brown county; D. Haney, Judge.

Action by the St. Croix Lumber Company against Lester C. Mitchell, Charles F. Hatch, and William Tennant to enforce a mechanic's lien. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.Geo. W. Jenkins and F. A. Luse, for appellants. Crofoot & Stevens, for respondent.

CORSON, J.

This was an action brought under the mechanic's lien law to foreclose a subcontractor's lien for material furnished to the contractor for the erection of a flouring mill. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal. The facts found by the court are, in substance, as follows: That on the 6th day of January, 1883, the defendants, under their then firm name of S. S. Pratt & Co., made a contract with the firm of Chisholm Bros. & Gunn to erect for them a flouring mill at Aberdeen, in the then territory of Dakota; that between April 30th and September 1, 1883, the plaintiff herein sold and delivered to the contractors, Chisholm Bros. & Gunn, lumber to the value of $567.35; that said lumber was furnished for and used in the erection of said mill under the said contract; that on September 10, 1883, a notice of lien was duly filed, and “that the contract between S. S. Pratt & Co. and Chisholm Bros. & Gunn to erect said mill was made and entered into on the 6th day of January, A. D. 1883, and while chapter 94 of the Laws of 1881 was in force, and prior to March 9, 1883, the time when said chapter was amended, and that no notice, as provided in chapter 94, Laws 1881, was ever given these defendants by plaintiff of its intention to furnish material for the erection of said mill; and that these defendants had no knowledge that plaintiff had furnished material for said Chisholm Bros. & Gunn, to be used in said mill, until long after same was furnished, and at or about the time a claim for lien was filed by the plaintiff, as hereinbefore set forth.” From the facts found, the court concluded, as matter of law, that plaintiff was entitled to a judgment of foreclosure, and based its conclusions upon the fact that the action was formerly tried in the district court of the late territory of Dakota, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendants; that an appeal was taken from said judgment to the late supreme court of...