Citizens Savings Bank Co. v. Highway Construction Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Citizens Savings Bank Co. v. Highway Construction Co.

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 329

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1924

DocketNo. 1152

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 329 (Citizens Savings Bank Co. v. Highway Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Citizens Savings Bank Co. v. Highway Construction Co., 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 329 (Ohio Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

KUNKLE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

This is a controversy between the Bank and Construction Co. over a fund in the hands of the Highway Commissioner. The bank claimed, by reason of an assignment, while the Construction Co. claimed a mechanics’ lien for materials furnished the contractor. The work in question consisted of repair and maintenance Work as distinguished from a contract job, and the work was awarded upon an order instead of upon a public letting and formal contract with bond. In affirming the judgment, allowing the claim of the Construction Co., the Court of Appeals held:

1. “We are of opinion that under the broad terms of 8324 GC., a mechanics’ lien can be taken for material furnished under contract such as the one in question ”

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

KUNKLE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

This is a controversy between the Bank and Construction Co. over a fund in the hands of the Highway Commissioner. The bank claimed, by reason of an assignment, while the Construction Co. claimed a mechanics’ lien for materials furnished the contractor. The work in question consisted of repair and maintenance Work as distinguished from a contract job, and the work was awarded upon an order instead of upon a public letting and formal contract with bond. In affirming the judgment, allowing the claim of the Construction Co., the Court of Appeals held:

1. “We are of opinion that under the broad terms of 8324 GC., a mechanics’ lien can be taken for material furnished under contract such as the one in question ”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-savings-bank-co-v-highway-construction-co-ohioctapp-1924.