Clark v. Brown
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. Scire facias to enforce a mechanic’s lien under the St. Louis mechanics’ lien act of February, 1848. The scire facias issued against Brown, the contractor for the erection of the building upon which a lien is claimed to exist, and Scarritt & Mason, owners thereof.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. Scire facias to enforce a mechanic’s lien under the St. Louis mechanics’ lien act of February, 1848. The scire facias issued against Brown, the contractor for the erection of the building upon which a lien is claimed to exist, and Scarritt & Mason, owners thereof. Scarritt & Mason, in their answer, “ admit that they received notice of plaintiffs’ claim on the 22d day of July, 1852.” “ They pray the court to protect them in any judgment that may be rendered against the said Brown or the said building.” It is not alleged in this answer, that the notice given…
1Opinion of the CourtLeonard, Judge
In order to constitute a valid lien in favor of a material man under a contract, not with the owner, but with the contractor, pursuant to the St. Louis mechanics’ lien act of February, 1843, it is essential that the party who desires to acquire the lien should give notice of his intention to the owner within thirty days after the indebtedness accrued, or the .completion of the building or improvements. If, however, the owner or his agent can not be found, a written notice may be placed, as a substitute for the personal notice, upon some conspicuous part of the building, and a copy filed in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- McAdow v. SturtevantMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Wiltsie v. HarveyMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- McMillan & Parker v. Ball & Gunning Milling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Young v. Porter-Leach Hardware Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1941
- Scott v. Larkin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1951