Heltzell v. Langford
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Si. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was a cause wherein plaintiff sues the defendants Lang-ford By the evidence it appears that one Coleman, a sub-contractor, first got the goods and chattels from plaintiff, and the point made by appellant that he (Coleman) should have been joined as a co-defendant is not tenable. The statutory defendants being joined, is sufficient for the plaintiff to maintain his suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Si. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was a cause wherein plaintiff sues the defendants Lang-ford By the evidence it appears that one Coleman, a sub-contractor, first got the goods and chattels from plaintiff, and the point made by appellant that he (Coleman) should have been joined as a co-defendant is not tenable. The statutory defendants being joined, is sufficient for the plaintiff to maintain his suit. (Mechanics’ Liens, Acts, 1857, § 8.) There is no error in the record, and plaintiff asks for an affirmance of the judgment, with ten per cent, damages, there being not even…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
This action was brought under the lien law specially applicable to St. Louis county. (Sess. Acts, 1856-7, pp. 668-9.)
The act provides that in all suits under it “the petition, among other things, shall allege the facts necessary for securing the lien.” One of the requisite facts is that the creditor shall, within a time limited, file an account of his demand in the proper office. The time of filing is a material, issuable fact, which must be alleged and without which the petition will not show a cause of action. It is not enough to aver the filing of the demand without an averment of the time…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bradish v. JamesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Ewing v. DonnellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- George F. Robertson Plastering Co. v. AltmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- Gault v. SoldaniSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
- Sanderson v. FlemingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889