Mead Construction Co. v. Wilson
Indiana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, C. J.
Appellant sued to foreclose a street improvement lien on appellees’ lot under §10445 Burns 1926, being §109, ch. 129, Acts 1905, as amended by §3, ch. 172, Acts 1909. The lot lies at the intersection of two curving streets so that its frontage on the street which was improved is forty-two and four-tenths feet at the property line but only seventeen and four-tenths feet at the curb line.
The complaint alleged that the city of Indianapolis contracted with appellant for the improvement in question, which contract was fully performed, that the work was accepted by the city, and that appellees’ lot…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lux & Talbott Stone Co. v. DonaldsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- City of New Albany v. LemonIndiana Supreme Court · 1925
- Dawson v. HipskindIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Darnell v. KellerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
- Hutchins v. Incorporated Town of FremontIndiana Supreme Court · 1924
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- City of Indianapolis v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of AmericaIndiana Court of Appeals · 1932
- Indianapolis Railways, Inc. v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1951
- Bachelder v. HarshbargerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1937
- Crawshaw v. Mead-Balch Construction Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1934