King v. Smith
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants Edward D. Smith and Seth K. Howes from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Young, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants Edward D. Smith and Seth K. Howes from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Young, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The plaintiff’s lien-statement was as follows; Exhibit “A.”' “Minneapolis, Minn., March 10, 1888. Mr. James McKinney, Jr., To Silas King, Dr. 1887. July 15th to Dec. 81st. To plastering, labor and material, on McKinney Block, contract price, ----- $2,300.00 Extra wire lathing, 8,170 yds. at 5 c. - - - 408.50 Extra work patching up plastering, 9 days work of two men at $5.60 ----- 50.40 Dec. 13. Coke, 19| tons at $8.00 ..... 158.00 Dee. 5.…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
This is an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien upon real estate. Prior to the 15th of July, 1887, the defendant McKinney, with his wife, and the defendants Olive A. Lee and Bernard A. Lee, entered into contracts with the owners of the land in question, the defendants Boshart and Lane, for the purchase of the property, and McKinney entered into possession and commenced the construction of a building thereon. During the period from July 15,1887, to December 31, 1887, the plaintiff, pursuant to a valid contract with McKinney, performed .the labor and furnished the material for the erection of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. . WalkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Maloney v. FinneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
3Cited by13 opinions
- Ringgenberg v. WilmsmeyerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
- Taylor v. NetherwoodSupreme Court of Virginia · 1895
- Hunt Hardware Co. v. HerzoffSupreme Court of Iowa · 1923
- Lampert Yards, Inc. v. Thompson-Wetterling Construction & Realty, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Davis v. ElliottIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.