Smith v. Hurd
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs, Charles A. Smith and John S. Pillsbury, partners as C. A. Smith & Co., from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Pond, J., made March 25,1892, denying their motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs, Charles A. Smith and John S. Pillsbury, partners as C. A. Smith & Co., from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Pond, J., made March 25,1892, denying their motion for a new trial. On March 30, 1889, the defendant Kate F. Knight was the owner of lots eleven (11) and twelve (12) in block two, (2,) Biddleman’s Addition to Minneapolis, and the defendant Walter F. Hurd was erecting two dwelling houses on these lots under a contract therefor with defendant Knight. The plaintiffs furnished Hurd, at his request, materials for the erection of the buildings. The…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. According to the findings of fact and the settled case, defendant Knight was, March 30, 1889, the owner of the premises consisting of two-lots, (eleven and twelve.) Defendant Hurd was the contractor to-construct the buildings, and plaintiffs .sold to him the materials, the last item of which was furnished July 17,1889. June 3,1889, Knight-executed a mortgage on one of the lots to defendant Doten, and on the other to defendant Lovell. January 17, 1890, plaintiffs filed the . lien statement. June 2, 1890, each of the mortgages was foreclosed, the mortgagee…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bardwell v. CollinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
3Cited by25 opinions
- Davis v. BartzWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- Hokanson v. GundersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- State v. BiesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Western Loan & Building Co. v. Gem State Lumber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1919
- Ryan Contracting, Inc. v. Jag Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.