Hause v. Carroll
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Land Court. The defendant in error in this case is not entitled to a lien against the property of the plaintiff in error, Carroll: 1. For there was no contract between him and Carroll, the owner of the land.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Land Court. The defendant in error in this case is not entitled to a lien against the property of the plaintiff in error, Carroll: 1. For there was no contract between him and Carroll, the owner of the land. The petition and evidence both show that the bricks in question were sold by defendant in error to one Thompson, who had no contract with Carroll, but, on the contrary, sold the bricks as an article of merchandise to Bridwell, and was paid for them; Bridwell afterwards furnished the bricks to Hockham & Fenn, the contractors, and he alone, if any one, is entitled to a…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The point made in this case by the plaintiff in error, as to the sufficiency of the notice, cannot be urged in this court, as no objections were made to it in the court below. There was an averment in the petition, that the statutory notice was given preparatory to filing the lien, and the court, as the trier of the fact, was the appropriate tribunal to judge whether the evidence supported th e averment. A party seeking to enforce a mechanic’s lien up on a building, must show that he furnished the materials for the building, under a contract either with the owner of, or the contractor for,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hause v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
3Cited by6 opinions
- Badger Lumber Co. v. SteppSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Graves v. PierceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Bruce v. BergMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
- Western Sash & Door Co. v. BucknerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Duross v. BroderickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.