Wanganstein v. Jones

• Decision Date: 06 June 1895
• Citation: 63 N.W. 717,61 Minn. 262
• Parties: WANGANSTEIN ET AL. v. JONES ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

61 Minn. 262

63 N.W. 717

WANGANSTEIN ET AL.

v.JONES ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 6, 1895.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Evidence considered, and held sufficient to sustain the judgment.

Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; Charles L. Lewis, Judge.

Action by John J. Wanganstein and W. E. Bailie, partners as Wanganstein & Bailie, against Amos B. Jones and Thomas D. Merrill, to enforce a mechanic's lien. Plaintiffs had judgment, and defendant Merrill appeals. Affirmed.

Wm. T. White, for appellant.

John Rustgard, for respondents.

BUCK, J.

Action to enforce a mechanic's lien. On the 7th day of April, 1892, the plaintiffs, who were architects, were employed by the defendant Amos B. Jones to furnish plans and specifications for, and to superintend the erection of, a certain dwelling house which Jones was about to erect upon certain lots then owned by him in the city of Duluth; and, on the day above named, plaintiffs entered upon the performance of their contract. In addition to furnishing plans and specifications, it was the duty of the plaintiffs to visit the building and inspect the work from time to time, and estimate the amount done, and approve of the work, before any money was paid upon it. A part of the services to be performed by plaintiff was the superintending of the erection of a first-class hot-water heating apparatus in such dwelling; and, from the contract appearing in evidence, the work to be done was quite elaborate and expensive, and needed the careful examination of a competent person, to see that it was well done. The building itself cost over $11,000. The contractors for putting in the heating apparatus commenced work in the month of August, 1892, and completed the work October 4, 1893. About the 1st day of May, 1893, the defendant Amos B. Jones conveyed the premises to the defendant Thomas D. Merrill, who resists the claim of the plaintiffs' lien upon the premises upon the ground that plaintiffs, as such architects, had accepted the house as completed in the fall of 1892, and that whatever they did in September and October, 1893, was under an entirely different contract, and in no way connected with the architect's house contract made April 7, 1892. If the facts sustained this contention the claim of Merrill would be a valid defense, because a separate contract cannot be tacked to another to secure a mechanic's lien for services or labor done under both, or either one separately, so as to extend the time for filing the lien under the first contract, where such time had already expired. The evidence bearing upon this question is rather...