Goff v. Papin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. I. Brannock Jones was not a necessary party to the suit, having made a full assignment to plaintiff. II. The fact that title to the premises was in a trustee for the benefit of the wife of Peter M. Papin, who contracted for the work and materials, will not prevent the lien attaching under the statute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. I. Brannock Jones was not a necessary party to the suit, having made a full assignment to plaintiff. II. The fact that title to the premises was in a trustee for the benefit of the wife of Peter M. Papin, who contracted for the work and materials, will not prevent the lien attaching under the statute. (Forrester v. Preston and others, published in Legal Record, July 7, 1862; 4 Mo. 98 ; Smith’s L. C. 532; 3 Hill, 219 ; 9 Cowan, 377; 21 Mo. 213.) III. A mechanic’s lien may be assigned, so as to give the assignee the right to sue and enforce the lien. The…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
This was a suit by Goff, as assignee of Brannock Jones, against Peter M. Papin and Mary his wife, and Raymond A. Papin, trustee of the wife’s property, to enforce a mechanic’s lien for work and labor performed and materials furnished by said Jones, under contract with said Peter M. Papin, in and about the erection and repair of certain buildings on the trust land of the wife ; the petition shows a partial payment of the debt by Papin, and the transfer of the remainder by Jones to the plaintiff. Goff sued in his own name, without making Jones a party. The defendants demurred to the petition,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Jones v. Hurst.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. Oxford Iron Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1880
- Downey v. HiggsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Benham v. Banker-Edwards Building Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1894