Honstain Bros. v. Linden Investment Co.
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of Cavalier County, Honorable Chas. M. Cooley, Special Judge. “The name of the person by whom the claimant was employed, or to whom he furnished the materials, must be stated in the claim of the lien.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of Cavalier County, Honorable Chas. M. Cooley, Special Judge. “The name of the person by whom the claimant was employed, or to whom he furnished the materials, must be stated in the claim of the lien.” Bloom, Mechanic’s Liens, p. 381; Hogan v. Bigler, 96 Pac. 97; Maderia Plume Co. v. Kendall, 52 Pac. 304. A mechanic’s lien being a creature of statute, every step prescribed by statute must be shown to have been substantially followed, or the lien does not exist. Stoltze v. Hurd, 20 N, D. 412. A party who sues on a special contract to recover compensation alleged…
1DissentBronson, J.
I dissent. In my opinion the majority opinion is attempting to demonstrate that two and two make something different than four. Further than that in accordance to the holding of the majority opinion, there is awarded to the plaintiff a greater amount than he demanded in the complaint even after the complaint was amended by the plaintiff in the trial court increasing the amount thereof. As I understand it this court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, must consider the record upon the issues as framed, upon pleadings submitted in the trial court, and that it is neither the time nor…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McCormack v. PhillipsSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1887
- Moher v. RasmussonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- Linden Inv. Co. v. Honstain Bros.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- Smith v. GillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887