Heltzell v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court, Hon. Ft.t.tatt Robinson, Judge. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the ■court. I. Where the trial is by the court, and there is no dispute as to the facts, matters of law necessarily passed on by the court in arriving at its conclusion, are subjects of review in the appellate court, although no. instructions were asked or given.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court, Hon. Ft.t.tatt Robinson, Judge. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the ■court. I. Where the trial is by the court, and there is no dispute as to the facts, matters of law necessarily passed on by the court in arriving at its conclusion, are subjects of review in the appellate court, although no. instructions were asked or given. Walter v. Ford, 74 Mo. 195; Henry v. Bell, 75 Mo. 194. It is not material whether a part of the cement furnished was not used ; but if it is, the evidence on that point is conclusive. Mechanic’» lien laws “are highly…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This action is to enforce a lien against the Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago Railway Company, for material furnished in its construction. The Chicago .& Alton was the contractor to build it, and is now lessee thereof. Reed & Taylor were sub-contractors under the Chicago & Alton, and, as such, purchased the material .here sued for and claimed as a lien.
The evidence showed that eighty barrels of the material were actually furnished, more than ninety days before plaintiffs filed their lien account. The evidence tended to show that sixty-six barrels of the material were not used in the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gerard B. Allen & Co. v. Frumet Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Livermore v. WrighSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
- Deardorff v. EverharttSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Morrison v. HancockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Fulton Iron Works v. North Center Creek Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cincinnati, Richmond & Muncie Railroad v. SheraIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905
- Darlington Lumber Co. v. HarrisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Big Horn Lumber Co. v. DavisWyoming Supreme Court · 1906