Weller v. Goble
| Decision Date | 24 April 1885 |
| Citation | 23 N.W. 290,66 Iowa 113 |
| Parties | WELLER v. GOBLE ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Dickinson District Court.
THE plaintiff furnished lumber for the erection of certain buildings which the defendant Goble built for the defendant Davison. The plaintiff brings this action to establish a mechanic's lien upon the premises, and he also asks for a judgment for the amount due him against the defendants Wright and Carleton, who became guarantors for Goble for the performance of his contract. The defendants Palmer & Smyth were also material-men, and the defendants Griffin & Adams were assignees of material-men, and they filed cross-petitions praying, respectively, for the establishment of a mechanic's lien, and for judgment against Wright and Carleton. To the petition filed by the plaintiff, and the cross-petitions filed respectively by Palmer & Smyth and Griffin & Adams, the defendants Wright and Carleton demurred and their demurrer was sustained, and the petition and cross-petitions were dismissed as to Wright and Carleton, and from the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petitions and cross-petitions, the plaintiff, Weller, and defendants Palmer & Smyth and Griffin & Adams, appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Parker & Richardson, for plaintiff and Griffin & Adams.
W. S Bemis, for Palmer & Smyth.
No appearance for the other parties.
The question presented is as to whether Wright and Carleton, as guarantors of Goble's contract with Davison, the owner of the property, became liable to the material-men. The petition and cross-petitions set out the contract, and the demurrer raised the question as to whether the material-men were privy to the contract. The position of the material-men is that while they were not specifically named in the contract, and do not, even under the general denomination of material-men expressly appear to be parties to it, yet it was intended for their benefit, and that, such being the fact, they are entitled to recover, under the doctrine expressed in Jordan v. Kavanagh, 63 Iowa 152, 18 N.W. 851, and Baker v. Bryan, 64 Iowa 561. But, in our opinion, the case at bar differs from those cases in the material point. Wright and Carleton not only did not guaranty that Goble would pay the plaintiff and the cross-petitioners specifically, but they did not guaranty that he would pay them under any general designation which necessarily includes them. In Jordan v. Kavanagh the obligation of the sureties was that Kavanagh should "pay all just claims against him for labor performed or materials furnished in the work under the contract." In Baker v. Bryan the obligation of the sureties was that Bryan...
To continue reading
Request your trial