Coenen & Mentzer v. Staub

Supreme Court of Iowa

Coenen & Mentzer v. Staub

36 N.W. 877, 74 Iowa 32, 1887 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 435

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedMarch 8, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 36 N.W. 877 (Coenen & Mentzer v. Staub) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coenen & Mentzer v. Staub, 36 N.W. 877, 74 Iowa 32, 1887 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 435 (iowa 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Reed, J.

Plaintiffs seek to enforce a lien for the materials against the lot in front of which the sidewalk was constructed, and the only question in the case is whether they are entitled to that remedy. The statute under which the remedy is claimed (Code, sec. 2130) is as follows: “Every mechanic or other person who shall cLo any labor upon, or furnish any material, machinery, or fixtures for, any building, erection, or other improvement upon land, including those engaged in the construction or repair of any work of internal improvement, by virtue of any contract with the owner, his agent, trustee, contractor, or subcontractor, upon complying with the provisions of this chapter shall have, for his labor done, or materials, machinery, or fixtures furnished, a lien upon such building, erection or improvement, and upon the land belonging to such owner on which the same is situated, to secure the payment of such labor done, or materials, machinery or fixtures furnished.” , Under this provision, the lien attaches to the building, eregtion or improvement, and to the land upon which it is situated. The sidewalk is not situated upon the lot sought to be charged, but in the street on which it fronts. It is not an improvement upon or of the lot, nor was it made for the benefit of [34]*34the owner, but of the public, and was constructed by the owner, as we presume, in obedience to some requirement of the town government. Under provisions of the statute, many street improvements in incorporated towns and cities may be made at the cost of the owners of the abutting property. Streets may be reduced, or filled to grade and paved, and sewers and sidewalks may be constructed therein, and, when the work is done by the city, the cost may be taxed by special assessment upon the abutting property, or the property-owners may be required to do the work in front of their respective properties. But, however it may be done, the work is a public, rather than private, improvement; and the law does not afford the mechanic or materialman who does such work or furnishes material therefor, under contract with the owner of the abutting property, a lien therefor upon the property.

Affirmed.

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

Reed, J.

Plaintiffs seek to enforce a lien for the materials against the lot in front of which the sidewalk was constructed, and the only question in the case is whether they are entitled to that remedy. The statute under which the remedy is claimed (Code, sec. 2130) is as follows: “Every mechanic or other person who shall cLo any labor upon, or furnish any material, machinery, or fixtures for, any building, erection, or other improvement upon land, including those engaged in the construction or repair of any work of internal improvement, by virtue of any contract with the owner, his agent, trustee, contractor, or subcontractor, upon complying with the provisions of this chapter shall have, for his labor done, or materials, machinery, or fixtures furnished, a lien upon such building, erection or improvement, and upon the land belonging to such owner on which the same is situated, to secure the payment of such labor done, or materials, machinery or fixtures furnished.” , Under this provision, the lien attaches to the building, eregtion or improvement, and to the land upon which it is situated. The sidewalk is not situated upon the lot sought to be charged, but in the street on which it fronts. It is not an improvement upon or of the lot, nor was it made for the benefit of [34]*34the owner, but of the public, and was constructed by the owner, as we presume, in obedience to some requirement of the town government. Under provisions of the statute, many street improvements in incorporated towns and cities may be made at the cost of the owners of the abutting property. Streets may be reduced, or filled to grade and paved, and sewers and sidewalks may be constructed therein, and, when the work is done by the city, the cost may be taxed by special assessment upon the abutting property, or the property-owners may be required to do the work in front of their respective properties. But, however it may be done, the work is a public, rather than private, improvement; and the law does not afford the mechanic or materialman who does such work or furnishes material therefor, under contract with the owner of the abutting property, a lien therefor upon the property.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.W. 877, 74 Iowa 32, 1887 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coenen-mentzer-v-staub-iowa-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack