Legal Opinion

Breneman v. Harvey

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided December 21, 1886PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cedar Rapids. AotioN IN chanoery. Upon a motion by the defendant Linn county, parts of the petition were stricken out. From this order plaintiff appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtBecK, J.

I. The petition of plaintiff, and amendments thereto, show that plaintiff was employed by Harvey, and 1. MECHANIC’S lien: enforce-meat against °[\aw. performed, under such employment, labor and x „ T. ,1 services m constructing bridares tor Linn county, ° ° J 7 Harvey being employed as the contractor to do such and that abalance is due plaintiff for his labor. In the original petition plaintiff asks for judgment against all the defendants. In an amended petition he prays for such judgment; and, further, “that his lien as a mechanic and laborer be established and enforced against the property,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Loring & Co. v. SmallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
  2. Whiting v. Story CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1880

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hutchinson v. KruegerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  2. McGillivray Bros. v. District Township of BartonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
  3. Whitehouse v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
  4. Independent School District v. MardisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
  5. Sleeper v. ElliottNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916

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

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

Powered by the Exa API