Bertheolet v. Parker, Imp.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Crawford County. The defendants Eeynolds & Lefeldt were employed by the defendant M.ary E. Parker to erect, and did erect, a dwelling house for her on certain lots described in the complaint, situated in the city of Boscobel. The plaintiff performed labor .for Eeynolds & Lefeldt on such house, at a stipulated price, a balance of which remains unpaid.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Crawford County. The defendants Eeynolds & Lefeldt were employed by the defendant M.ary E. Parker to erect, and did erect, a dwelling house for her on certain lots described in the complaint, situated in the city of Boscobel. The plaintiff performed labor .for Eeynolds & Lefeldt on such house, at a stipulated price, a balance of which remains unpaid. This action was to recover such balance of Eeynolds & Lefeldt, and to enforce a lien therefor on such building and lots. Within the time prescribed by statute (E. S., ch. 153, sec. 2), the plaintiff served the…
1Opinion of the CourtLyon, J.
I am clearly of the opinion that the notice given by the plaintiff to Mrs. Parker that he had peformed labor on the house for Reynolds & Lefeldt, the original contractors, and claimed a lien therefor, is fatally defective, in that it fails to state the amount of his claim. The notice required by the statute (R. S., ch. 153, sec. 2) is essential to the plaintiff’s right to a lien, and, to be effectual, must state that the plaintiff claims the benefit of the lien granted by the statute. I am unable to perceive how this can be sufficiently stated without specifying the sum for which the lien is…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Christman v. SalwayOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Moritz v. SplittWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Malter v. Falcon Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1883
- Porteous Decorative Co. v. FeeNevada Supreme Court · 1907
- Morrison, Merrill & Co. v. WillardUtah Supreme Court · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.