Bailey v. Hull
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL EROM CIRCUIT COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, to enforce a mechanics’ lien, claimed by them upon certain real estate of the defendant.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM CIRCUIT COURT, MILWAUKEE COUNTY. This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, to enforce a mechanics’ lien, claimed by them upon certain real estate of the defendant. The petition for the lien and the complaint alleged that the plaintiffs performed labor and furnished materials in the erection of an iron fence, on certain lots of the defendant in the city of Milwaukee, on which the defendant’s dwelling house was situated, pursuant to a contract made with him, the same being finished October 3,1857; that there was a balance of #305 unpaid at that date, for the work and materials,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Paine, J.
The principal question presented by this appeal is whether a party is entitled to a lien for building a fence. We think it clear that he would not be, if in order to sustain the lien, it was necessary to hold that a fence was a “ building,” within the meaning of that word, as used in chap. 153, R. S., 1858, concerning the lien of mechanic’s and others. We had occasion to place a construction upon that word, in the case of the LaCrosse and Milwaukee Railroad Co. vs. Vanderpool et al., supra, 119, decided at this *291term, where we held that it did not include bridges, fences,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Appeal of Milwaukee Dry Dock Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1895
- Schmidt v. GilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- Kane & Keyser Hardware Co. v. CobbWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1917
- Bluefield Supply Co. v. M. P. Smith Construction Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1934
- Miller-Piehl Co. v. MullenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.