J. T. Weybrecht's Sons Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

If the tests applied by this court under the mechanics’ lien law are applicable, Carver-Behan Company was a materialman of the general contractor and not a subcontractor, and plaintiff was a material-man of Carver-Behan Company. It is apparent therefore that, if those tests are applicable, the plaintiff was a materialman of a materialman of the general contractor.

Thus, the question to be determined is whether one who, under the tests applied under the mechanics’ lien law in distinguishing between a subcontractor and a materialman, is a materialman of a materialman of a general contractor may…