Meyers Lumber Co. v. Tompkins
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of Ward County, K. F. Leighton, J. In some states there is- a distinction between tbe terms “subcontractor” and “materialman.” Tbis is not true in tbis state. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6250. A direct lien is given to tbe subcontractor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of Ward County, K. F. Leighton, J. In some states there is- a distinction between tbe terms “subcontractor” and “materialman.” Tbis is not true in tbis state. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6250. A direct lien is given to tbe subcontractor. Robertson Lumber Co. v. State Bank, 14 N. D. 515, 105 N. W. 119; Langworthy Lumber Co. v. Hunt, 19 N. D. 436, 122. N. W. 865. It is the furnishing of the materials for the purpose of the construction, and tbe good faith delivery that controls and gives the lien right. Sehlosser v. Moores, 16 N. D. 185, 112 N. W. 19; Central Lumber Co. v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBubee, J.
This is a continuation of the controversy treated in Meyer Lumber Co. v. Trygstad, 22 N. D. 558, 134 N. W. 714, where a statement of the facts may be found. After the said decision, holding void the lien filed against both lots and buildings thereon, the *80lumber company, on tbe 4th day of /April, 1912, filed separate liens upon each lot and building, and later brought action to enforce the lien against Tompkins, in the district court of Ward county, North Dakota. The complaint is in the ordinary form, and alleges that, at the request of the contractor, they furnished for both buildings,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sullivan v. Ross' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Meyer Lumber Co. v. TrygstadNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sheldon v. Chicago Bonding & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1921