Thomas v. Hoge
| Decision Date | 08 May 1897 |
| Docket Number | 9171 |
| Citation | 58 Kan. 166,48 P. 844 |
| Parties | JONATHAN THOMAS v. ELIZABETH W. HOGE, Executrix, etc |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1897.
Error from Shawnee District Court. Hon. John Guthrie, Judge.
Judgment reversed.
H. C Safford, for plaintiff in error.
J. G Slonecker, for defendant in error.
On February 2, 1888, John Norton and W. E. Goulding & Son entered into the following contract:
On the trial of the case which grew out of the making of this contract, it was admitted: "That on or about May 1, 1888, the written contract of February 2, 1888, was modified by parol so that the Gouldings were to erect two houses upon said premises and that eleven hundred dollars was to be furnished to be put into the buildings, instead of six hundred dollars as contemplated in said contract of February 2." The Gouldings erected the houses in accordance with the above agreement and its parol modification. The plaintiff in error, who is a dealer in building material, began on June 21, 1888, to furnish to the Gouldings the lumber necessary for the erection of the houses contracted for between themselves and Norton. On July 18, 1888, the lots were conveyed as per agreement; and at the same time a couple of mortgages, each for one thousand dollars, were executed on the property by the Gouldings. These mortgages, however, were made to J. B. Bartholomew instead of to Norton. Soon after their execution they were assigned to the testator of the defendant in error. Afterwards, the plaintiff in error and others who had furnished material or performed labor in the erection of the houses foreclosed their liens therefor, making all persons, except the owner of the mortgages, parties to the suit. Judgments of foreclosure were rendered and the property ordered to be sold; and eight hundred dollars of the amount for which the mortgages had been given being still in Bartholomew's hands, its application towards the satisfaction, pro rata, of the judgments was ordered. The property was sold for the remainder of the judgments, and was purchased by the plaintiff in error, who received a sheriff's deed therefor. Subsequently, this suit was commenced to foreclose the mortgages on the property in question. Judgment went for the plaintiff, from which judgment the defendant prosecutes error to this court.
These are all the relevant facts; and the question arising thereon is one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Birdview Satellite Communications, Inc.
...to perfection is thus not controlling, as is true of the other cases cited by Midgley. Midgley cites another case, Thomas v. Hoge, 58 Kan. 166, 48 P. 844 (1897), for the proposition that a mechanic's lien may still be asserted against the mortgagee even though no timely action is commenced ......
-
Western Loan & Building Co. v. Gem State Lumber Co.
... ... construed to effect its objects and promote justice ... (Phillips v. Salmon River Min. etc. Co., 9 Idaho ... 149, 72 P. 886; Thomas v. Hoge, 58 Kan. 166, 48 P ... 844; Blanshard v. Schwartz, 7 Okla. 23, 54 P. 303, 306.) ... Pure ... defenses are held not to be barred ... ...
-
Bell v. Hernandez
...provided in the Code do not run as against a nonresident. We cannot concur in this view. It is true, the writer of the opinion in Thomas v. Hoge, supra, expressed individual view that section 21 of the Civil Code (now R. S. 60--309) applied to such a situation, but this view was not concurr......
-
Drexel On the Park, LLC v. Statewide Renovation & Supplies, Inc.
...new owner and any new lending to be put in place on the property. Based on Oklahoma lien statutes, and the precedent of Thomas v. Hoge, 58 Kan. 166, 48 P. 844 (Kan. 1897), Statewide believes that its claim will take priority over any new mortgage liens that may be put in place in connection......