Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Metropolitan Water Company v. Hild

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 17, 1966No. 40769Published

1ConcurrenceBerry, Justice

(specially concurring) :

For reasons herein stated I specially concur.

It is elementary that the primary object of our lien law is to insure to laborers and materialmen the payment of their accounts, and at the same time protect an owner against filing of liens against his property by such parties for services and material furnished by the original contractor.

In the case involved the petition alleged the execution of the written contract between plaintiff and the Developer. The lien claim asserted was under two causes of action, relating to different lots, separately described by plat number.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  2. Atlas Life Insurance v. SchrimsherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
  3. Fowler v. FrancisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
  4. Hammond Hotel & Improvement Co. v. WilliamsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1931
  5. Jankoviak v. ButcherAppellate Court of Illinois · 1959

4 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