Legal Opinion

Macklin v. Miller Improved Gas Engine Co.

Ohio Circuit Courts

Decided March 25, 1910Published

Error to Franklin common pleas court.

1Opinion of the CourtDustin, J.

We regret that we are unable to take the same view of this ease as the common pleas court. It seems a great hardship that the engine company should lose the $2,500 for a failure to state the date of the labor involved in installing the engine in question which completed the contract in “furnishing” the same.

We find nothing in the statement of account, nor in the affidavit nor in the contract, which shows or even hints that the contract may have been completed within four months of the time of filing the affidavit upon which the claim for a lien is based.

On the contrary, the affidavit very…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shackleford v. BeckSupreme Court of Virginia · 1885
  2. Armstrong v. ChisolmAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
  3. Chappell v. SmithNebraska Supreme Court · 1894

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API