Cambridge Tile Manufacturing Co. v. Germania Bank

57 S.E. 311, 128 Ga. 178, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 59
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 13, 1907·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Cobb, P. J.

This was an action by a materialman, who had furnished material for the improvement of real estate to a subcontractor who had no contractual relation with the owner of the real estate, to foreclose a lien upon such real estate. The petition was [179] dismissed, upon demurrer. The case is controlled by the ruling in General Supply Co. v. Hunn, 126 Ga. 615. The case of Heard v. Holmes, 113 Ga. 159, was overruled in the case just cited. The case of Allen v. Schweigert, 110 Ga. 323, and 113 Ga. 69, did not involve the question as to the right to a lien by a materialman furnishing material to a subcontractor. The materialman in th'at ease was one who had furnished material to a contractor.

Judgment affirmed.

Fish, G. J., absent. The other Justices concur.

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

Cambridge Tile Manufacturing Co. v. Germania Bank, 57 S.E. 311, 128 Ga. 178, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 59 (Ga. 1907).

57 S.E. 311 (Cambridge Tile Manufacturing Co. v. Germania Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

George W. Muller Bank Fixture Co. v. Georgia State Savings Ass'n
85 S.E. 1018 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)