Willverding v. Offineer
| Decision Date | 31 January 1893 |
| Parties | WM. WILLVERDING, Appellant, v. R. E. OFFINEER et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Shelby District Court.--HON. WALTER I. SMITH, Judge.
ACTION in equity to recover the value of building materials sold and to establish and enforce a mechanic's lien. There was a hearing on the merits, which resulted in a decree in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendant F. M. Offineer, and against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant R. E Offineer. The plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Benj. I. Salinger, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
In October, 1889, the defendant R. E. Offineer purchased lot numbered 1 in block numbered 7 in Earling. At that time she was in Manning, and the business was transacted on her part by her mother, with the assistance of her father, the defendant F. M. Offineer. About the first of the next December the father purchased of the plaintiff lumber and other building materials to the amount of three hundred and forty-five dollars and thirty-two cents, which were used in constructing an addition to the building which then stood upon the lot. A statement and claim for a mechanic's lien as against the father was duly filed, but afterwards learning that the daughter owned the lot, a similar statement and claim against her was filed. The petition alleges that when the materials were purchased the father represented that he owned the property, and that the materials were furnished to him in good faith, his representation being relied on as true; that the daughter and her agent, the mother, knew that the materials were furnished by the plaintiff in good faith for the improvement of her lot; that her father had no means with which to pay for the materials so furnished; and that the daughter, with knowledge of all these facts, made no objection to the plaintiff on account of the improvement of her property, and that she is now estopped to deny responsibility therefor to the plaintiff. The answer of the father admits that he made the purchase alleged in the petition. The answer of the daughter denies all liability on her part for the materials in question. The district court dismissed the petition as against the daughter, and rendered judgment against the father for the amount of the plaintiff's claim.
The evidence shows that the lot and house thereon were purchased at the instance and for the use of the father and mother. The mother was authorized by the daughter to select and purchase a place for the latter, and to do so before she saw it. She testifies that her father and mother had a right to do with the property anything she could have done. The mother and daughter at first opposed the building of the addition, which was designed for use as a hall, but appear to have withdrawn opposition to it. The mother states that she "had to give up." The mother and daughter were present when the materials were furnished, and while the addition was being constructed, but made no objection to anything that was done. The addition has...
To continue reading
Request your trial