Salt Lake Foundry & Machine Co. v. Mammoth Mining Co.
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of tbe district court of tbe first district, and from an order refusing a new trial. Tbe court below found tbat tbe materials furnished were furnished at tbe defendant’s request, tbat a lien therefor was properly filed and still remained a valid lien.
1Opinion of the Court
Blackburn, J. -
This action was originaLly brought by George TV. Taylor et al., as plaintiffs, to foreclose a statutory lien against tbe defendant company. The respondent was a defendant, as a bolder of another lien. Tbe case of tbe original plaintiffs having been disposed of, tbe respondent is, in effect, plaintiff. It filed a cross-complaint for its lien, tbe appel*352lant put in an answer, and the cause was beard by the court below without a jury, and jndgment rendered for the respondent, from which judgment this appeal is taken. The cross-complaint alleges that the respondent, a corporation,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Clawson v. WallaceUtah Supreme Court · 1898
- King v. Pony Gold Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1903
- Hayward Lumber & Investment Co. v. LydersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Federal Land Bank of Berkeley v. Salt Lake Valley Sand & Gravel Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1939