Sweem v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court. — Hon. John P. Butler, Judge. (1) The statute gives no lien for work and labor performed under such a contract as that between defendant railway company and Pugh. The contract was not for the construction or the improvement of the defendant’s railway, nor was Pugh a contractor “having in charge the building, construction or improvement of such railroad or any part thereof;” Pugh’s employees, therefore, are not entitled to liens.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court. — Hon. John P. Butler, Judge. (1) The statute gives no lien for work and labor performed under such a contract as that between defendant railway company and Pugh. The contract was not for the construction or the improvement of the defendant’s railway, nor was Pugh a contractor “having in charge the building, construction or improvement of such railroad or any part thereof;” Pugh’s employees, therefore, are not entitled to liens. R. S. 1889, sec. 6741; Mackler v. Railway, 52 Mo. App. 516, loe. cit. 519. (2) The work and labor .performed by the lienors were…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
— This action is to enforce several mechanics’ liens against the defendant railway. There were *91other claims besides that of plaintiff and these were duly assigned to him. The judgment in the trial court was for plaintiff. The judgment was entered as a personal judgment against defendant and interest was also allowed on each claim.
The claims, with one exception, are for work and labor alleged to have been performed in constructing and improving defendant’s railroad and roadbed. The claim just excepted was for superintending the work. It appears that M. E. Pugh was the contractor having in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Edgar v. SalisburySupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- Nelson v. WithrowMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
- Borden v. JenksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Rapauno Chemical Co. v. Greenfield & Northern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Blakey v. BlakeySupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rinzel v. StumpfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Floreth v. McReynoldsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920
- Majors v. MaxwellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Carroll Contracting Co. v. NewsomeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1918