Wilkins v. Litchfield

• Decision Date: 09 October 1886
• Citation: 29 N.W. 447,69 Iowa 465
• Parties: WILKINS v. LITCHFIELD, EX'R.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

69 Iowa 465

29 N.W. 447

WILKINS

v.LITCHFIELD, EX'R.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 9, 1886.

Appeal from Boone circuit court.

Action to enforce a mechanic's lien. There was a decree for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.Gatch, Connor & Weaver and S. R. Dyer, for appellant.

Crooks & Jordan, for appellee.

ADAMS, C. J.

The plaintiff averred in his petition that in September, 1880, by virtue of a contract with the defendant's testate, he performed labor upon and furnished material for certain buildings, on certain land belonging to the defendant's testate, E. C. Litchfield, and that there is due him therefor the sum of $174.69. E. C. Litchfield answered, denying the alleged contract. Afterwards he died, and the defendant, E. H. Litchfield, was substituted as his executor.

The fact appears to be that the plaintiff performed labor upon and furnished materials for certain buildings upon E. C. Litchfield's land, but it is not averred nor pretended that any contract was made with him, unless through one John Browne or George H. Browne, acting as his agent. It is not denied that John Browne was Litchfield's agent for some purposes; but it is denied that either he or George H. Browne had authority to employ mechanics to make improvements upon his land; and it is denied that either of them ever undertook to do so in Litchfield's name, or in his behalf. At the time of the transaction in question Litchfield was a large land-owner in Iowa, and John Browne was acting as his agent in the sale of his lands. George H Browne had been put into possession by John Browne of the land in question, with the understanding between them that the land was to be sold to George, and a title procured for him. The improvements in question were made while George was in possession, and at his request, John Browne giving his assent thereto. It does not appear that at the time of the employment, or during the progress of the work, Litchfield's name was mentioned, or that there was any supposition on the part of the plaintiff, or any one else, that Litchfield was to pay him. On the other hand, it appears to have been supposed that the improvements were for the benefit of George H. Browne, and that he was to pay for the same. The account set out in the statement filed for a lien purports to be an account with George H. Browne, and in the affidavit embraced in the statement the plaintiff swears that the contract was made with George H. Browne, and that the labor and...