Legal Opinion

Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. Chainman Mining & Electric Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada

Decided March 21, 1904No. 756PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Demurrer to Complaint.

1Opinion of the CourtHawdey, District Judge

(orally). This is a suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien upon defendant’s mill and mines. The complaint shows that the last materials were furnished July 16, 1902; that the statement of lien was filed September 6, 1902. The first contention of the defendant is that the complainant is a “materialman,” and not an original contractor, and that its lien should have been filed within 30 days after the completion of the mill, and, not having filed its lien within the time provided by the statute of this state, the lien cannot be enforced.

The particular section of the statute relied upon by the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Hooven, Owens & Rentschler, Co. v. John Featherstone's SonsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
  2. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. FisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. James Hunter & Co. v. Truckee LodgeNevada Supreme Court · 1879
  4. Skyrme v. Occidental Mill & Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1873
  5. Lane & Bodley Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Russell v. HaynerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
  2. M. A. Phelps Lumber Co. v. McDonough Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1913
  3. Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. Chainman Mining & Electric Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1905
  4. Richmond MacHinery Co. v. BennettNevada Supreme Court · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API