Hartman v. Berry
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, St. Louis Girauit Court. 1. It is no defense to my action upon your note for yon to plead that you hold my covenant not to sue yon upon said note, and therefore I ought not to have and maintain my action. (Atwood vs. Lewis, 6 Mo., 392; Bircher vs. Payne, 7 Mo., 462; Bond vs. Worley, 26 Mo., 253.)
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action under the mechanics’ lien law, brought by the plaintiffs, as lumber men, for a balance due for lumber furnished the defendant, George W. Berry, contractor, under a contract by him with one Anna Griswald and her husband, L. M. Griswald, for building a row'of eight houses in St. Louis. During the progress of the buildings the defendant, Humphreys, purchased the property under a deed of trust, which had been made by the Griswalds to secure a debt to one Maria E. Bates.
The petition is in the usual form. The defendant Berry made no defense, and judgment by default was rendered…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Ward v. NoldeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Allen Estate Ass'n v. Fred Boeke & SonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Hayden v. WulfingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Fullerton Lumber Co. v. GatesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Badger Lumber Co. v. MuehlebachMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.