Peck v. Bridwell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. The petition is insufficient in not stating the date of the last items of the account, and in not stating that the dwellings constituted ■one building erected under one contract. — Fitzgerald v. Thomas, 61 Mo. 499. The lien was waived by the taking of other security. — Kinsey v. Thomas, 28 III. 502; •Gardner v. Hall,\29 III. 279; Orosbey v. Oarey, 48 111. 442; Bennesen v. Thayer, 23 111. 374; Brady v. Anderson, 24 111. 110.
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
This action was brought on March 12, 1873, under the then existing law of mechanic’s liens, by sub-contractor against contractor and owner. The cause was tried without a jury, and the finding was against the contractor, for the debt, and in favor of the lien. During thependency of the action", the property was bought by Card, who was made a defendant, and whose answer set up a special defence that the bill of lumber in question was not. sold to defendant Bridwell, but to one Mason, upon Mason’s written order and promise to pay for the same.
1. Defendant Card moved in arrest, on the ground that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fitzgerald v. ThomasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Peck v. BridwellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
3Cited by5 opinions
- Martin v. BeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Howe v. KindredSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Joslyn v. SmithNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Bruce Lumber Co. v. HoosMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Kaufman-Wilkinson Lumber Co. v. ChristophelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894