Andrews & Smith v. Burdick & Goble
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Palo Alto Pistriot Oowrt. ActioN in chancery to enforce a mechanics’ lien in favor of a sub-contractor. Judgment was entered against the contractors, but the petition was dismissed as to the owners of the property, the court holding that plaintiffs are not entitled to a lien. Plaintiffs appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
I. Plaintiffs furnished materials to Burdick & Goble, builders, who were erecting a storehouse for Potter & Skevington, under a contract with him. By the terms of the contract, payments were to be made in nearly equal parts upon the execution of the contract, and the completion of the building, and its acceptance by Potter & Skevington. It was to be completed between the 15th and 20th of June. It was not finished until the 3d of July. On the 5th day of June, plaintiffs furnished the materials to recover for which this suit is brought. On the morning of the 3d of July, jilaint-iffs filed in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stewart v. WrightSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- Winter & Co. v. HudsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Meany v. HeadU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1817
3Cited by22 opinions
- Wine v. JonesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- French v. FrenchSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
- Epeneter v. Montgomery CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Teager v. LandsleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1886
- Greenlee v. North British & Mercantile InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.