Stephens v. United Railroads Stock Yard Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the District -Court of Hamilton county. The United Railroads Stock Yard Company contracted with Jenkins & Ludwig to furnish materials and construct upon the company’s premises a brick building for ü, certain price. Jenkins & Ludwig sub-contracted with one Isaac •Carson for the labor and material necessary for the brickwork. Carson purshased of Stephens, plaintiff in error, the bricks used in the construction of the building.
Read the full summary
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the District -Court of Hamilton county. The United Railroads Stock Yard Company contracted with Jenkins & Ludwig to furnish materials and construct upon the company’s premises a brick building for ü, certain price. Jenkins & Ludwig sub-contracted with one Isaac •Carson for the labor and material necessary for the brickwork. Carson purshased of Stephens, plaintiff in error, the bricks used in the construction of the building. After Stephens had delivered the bricks upon his contract with Carson, and failed to get the whole of the purchase money…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The question in this case arises under the mechanics’ lien law, as amended ou the 30th of March, 1875 (72 Ohio L. 166). The plaintiff in error, who was a creditor of the sub-contractor for materials furnished, sought to recover his claim from the owner of the building, under favor of section 2 of said amendatory act, which provides that “ any person who shall furnish materials for the construction ' of any such building, . . . whose demands for . . . materials so furnished have not been paid and satisfied, may deliver to or file with such owner . . . an attested account of'the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Fruin-Bambrick Construction Co. v. JonesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Stone Co. v. Board of PublicationTennessee Supreme Court · 1892
- Duignan v. Montana ClubMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- Leitch v. Central Dispensary & Emergency HospitalCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1895