Legal Opinion

C. C. Constance & Sons v. Lay

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 11, 1930No. 22208PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

This was an action to marshal liens. The specific question presented is the validity of a mechanic’s lien, where, in certain particulars, the affidavit does not comply with the requirements of the statute. Upon hearing on appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the affidavit in question was deficient, and that the lien asserted by C. C. Constance & Sons in their cross-petition was therefore not legally established against the property involved. Among other requirements of the statute providing for the • assertion of mechanic’s liens is one that the affidavit must state “the amount…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mahoning Park Co. v. Warren Home Development Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Robert v. Clapp Co. v. FoxOhio Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Guernsey Bank v. Milano Sports Enterprises, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Crandall v. IrwinOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Fairfield Ready Mix v. Walnut Hills Associates, Ltd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. Crock Construction Co. v. Stanley Miller Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API