Macklin v. Miller Improved Gas Engine Co.
Franklin Circuit Court
We regret that we are unable to take the same view of this case as the common pleas court. It seems a great hardship that the engine company should lose the $2,500 for a failure to state the date of the labor involved in installing the engine in question which completed the contract in “furnishing” the same.
1Opinion of the Court
We find nothing in the statement of account, nor in the affidavit, nor in the contract, which shows or even hints that the contract may have been completed within four months of the time of filing the affidavit upon which the claim for a lien is based.
On the contrary the affidavit very explicitly states that the ‘‘annexed is a true and correct itemized statement of the amount and values of the labor performed and' materials, furnished. * * * at the times therein mentioned,” etc.
The statement referred to shows upon its face that the materials and labor were furnished more than four months…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Shackleford v. BeckSupreme Court of Virginia · 1885
- Armstrong v. ChisolmAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Rehrer v. ZeiglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Chappell v. SmithNebraska Supreme Court · 1894