Legal Opinion

Morrison, Merrill & Co. v. Willard

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1898No. 900PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from district court, Salt Lake county; Ogden Hiles, judge. Action by Morrison, Merrill & Co. against Willard & Stewart and B. J. Clayton. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained as to defendant Clayton, and plaintiff appeals.

1Opinion of the Court

Miner, J.:

Plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien upon property owned by defendant Clayton, arising upon its contract in furnishing material to Willard & Stewart, as subcontractors on a contract by them to build a house for defendant Clayton, and to secure a judgment against Willard and Clayton. The notice claiming a lien as filed, and set forth in the complaint, so far as material, reads as follows:

To Whom, it May Concern:

“Notice is hereby given that Morrison, Merrill & Company, a corporation duly organized under the laws of Utah, intends to claim and hold a lien on…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wagner v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Hooper v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Gates v. BrownWashington Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Bertheolet v. Parker, Imp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
  5. Fathman & Miller Planing Mill Co. v. RitterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Christman v. SalwayOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Culmer v. Hooper-CaineUtah Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Chase v. DAWSON ET UX.Utah Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Brubaker v. BennettUtah Supreme Court · 1899
  5. McCormack v. BertschingerOregon Supreme Court · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API