Caldwell v. Overall

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Caldwell v. Overall

1940 OK 63, 99 P.2d 496, 186 Okla. 615, 1940 Okla. LEXIS 69

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 6, 1940

DocketNo. 29490.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1940 OK 63 (Caldwell v. Overall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caldwell v. Overall, 1940 OK 63, 99 P.2d 496, 186 Okla. 615, 1940 Okla. LEXIS 69 (Okla. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

HURST, J.

Plaintiff, Overall, brought this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for work done as a carpenter on property owned by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The sole question involved is whether the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant’s husband, who employed plaintiff to do the work, was defendant’s agent. We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the agency of the husband is thereby sufficiently established. Without going into detail, it is sufficient to say that the facts and circumstances shown, as well as the admissions of the defendant, lead to the conclusion that the work was done for her, and that she knew that plaintiff had been employed for such purpose by the husband, and accepted his- services with such knowledge.

It is settled that before a lien can be established against real estate, the contract must be made with the owner or his duly authorized agent, and that the right to the lien depends on such contract. Deka Development Co. v. Fox (1934) 170 Okla. 228, 39 P. 2d 143. While the husband’s authority to act for his wife is not implied from the marital relation, nor from the mere fact that he occupied, or managed and controlled, his wife’s property, yet in many instances the agency of the husband is inferred from the circumstances, as when the wife *616 knew that the lien claimant was working on the building, and personally gave him directions as to parts of the work, when she participated in conversations between the contractors and her husband relative to the work while it was being done, or when she furnished what money was paid on some material and the building of the house. 18 R. C. L. 901; 40 C. J. p. 99, § 87.

We find nothing in the cases of Whitfield v. Frensley Bros. Lumber Co. (1930) 141 Okla. 44, 283 P. 985, and Swetnam v. Hale (1929) 138 Okla. 69, 280 P. 437, relied on by defendant, to change our view that the judgment is not against the clear weight of the evidence. Therefore we will not disturb such judgment. Cordilla et al. v. Taylor et al. (1937) 181 Okla. 20, 72 P. 2d 375.

Affirmed.

BAYLESS, C. J., and RILEY, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HURST, J.

Plaintiff, Overall, brought this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for work done as a carpenter on property owned by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The sole question involved is whether the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant’s husband, who employed plaintiff to do the work, was defendant’s agent. We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the agency of the husband is thereby sufficiently established. Without going into detail, it is sufficient to say that the facts and circumstances shown, as well as the admissions of the defendant, lead to the conclusion that the work was done for her, and that she knew that plaintiff had been employed for such purpose by the husband, and accepted his- services with such knowledge.

It is settled that before a lien can be established against real estate, the contract must be made with the owner or his duly authorized agent, and that the right to the lien depends on such contract. Deka Development Co. v. Fox (1934) 170 Okla. 228, 39 P. 2d 143. While the husband’s authority to act for his wife is not implied from the marital relation, nor from the mere fact that he occupied, or managed and controlled, his wife’s property, yet in many instances the agency of the husband is inferred from the circumstances, as when the wife *616 knew that the lien claimant was working on the building, and personally gave him directions as to parts of the work, when she participated in conversations between the contractors and her husband relative to the work while it was being done, or when she furnished what money was paid on some material and the building of the house. 18 R. C. L. 901; 40 C. J. p. 99, § 87.

We find nothing in the cases of Whitfield v. Frensley Bros. Lumber Co. (1930) 141 Okla. 44, 283 P. 985, and Swetnam v. Hale (1929) 138 Okla. 69, 280 P. 437, relied on by defendant, to change our view that the judgment is not against the clear weight of the evidence. Therefore we will not disturb such judgment. Cordilla et al. v. Taylor et al. (1937) 181 Okla. 20, 72 P. 2d 375.

Affirmed.

BAYLESS, C. J., and RILEY, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1940 OK 63, 99 P.2d 496, 186 Okla. 615, 1940 Okla. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldwell-v-overall-okla-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack