Stine v. Austin
| Decision Date | 31 October 1845 |
| Citation | 9 Mo. 558 |
| Parties | STINE v. AUSTIN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.
This was a scire facias on a mechanic's lien for lumber furnished in building a house. The lien was filed on the 22nd April, 1841; the last item of the account filed-is the 23rd October, 1840; and the defendant insisted before the Circuit Court that the plaintiff was only entitled to recover for so much of the account as had accrued within six months previous to the filing of the lien. The court being of a different opinion, a verdict was had against Stine, and a judgment thereon,--to reverse which he has appealed to this court. The account in this case, was a running account, and constituted but one entire demand, which accrued only when the last item was furnished; the lien having been filed within six months from the time the last item was furnished, was filed in time(a) The judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sidway v. Missouri Land & Live Stock Company, Limited
... ... 375; Chadwick v. Chadwick, ... 115 Mo. 586; Gibson v. Jenkins, 97 Mo.App. 36; ... Carson v. Steamboat, 16 Mo. 256; Austin v ... Stine, 9 Mo. 558; Bambrick v. Bambrick, 157 Mo ... 423; Livermore v. Wright, 33 Mo. 31; Moore v ... Renick, 95 Mo.App. 209; ... ...
-
Banner Lumber Co. v. Robson
...36 Mo. 446; Boylan v. Steamboat Victory, 40 Mo. 244; Fulton Iron Works v. North Center Creek Iron & Smelting Co., 80 Mo. 265; Stine v. Austin, 9 Mo. 558; Ring v. Jamison, Mo.App. 584; s. c. 66 Mo. 424. (10) "Credits." The opposite of debits. "Credit." In bookkeeping, the side of an account ......
-
Big Horn Lumber Company v. Davis
...Harman v. R. Co. (Cal.), 25 P. 124.) The payment of a particular item of a running account does not remove it from the account. (Stine v. Austin, 9 Mo. 554; v. Cook, 4 Iowa 115; Phillips Mech. Liens (3rd Ed.), Sec. 289.) The contention of plaintiff in error is fully supported by the case of......
-
O'Connor v. Current River R. Co.
...two distinct contracts. The statute has been uniformly construed to discountenance such a practice (2 Jones on Liens, sec. 1597; Stine v. Austin, 9 Mo. 558; Vito Viti v. Dixon, 12 Mo. 479; Livermore Wright, 33 Mo. 31; Schmeiding v. Ewing, 57 Mo. 78; Fitzgerald v. Thomas, 61 Mo. 499; Allen v......