Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. O'Heron

Appellate Court of Illinois

Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. O'Heron

183 Ill. App. 391

Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided November 24, 1913·No. Gen. No. 18,287·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Mechanics’ men, §• 24*—necessity that material be retained in the building. A subcontractor furnishing lumber to a contractor who uses it exclusively in the construction of moulds and forms for the erection of concrete foundations, removing the lumber after the concrete hardens, and none of it becoming part of the building, is not entitled to a mechanic’s lien against the owner. Following Rittenhouse & Embree Co. v. F. E. Brown & Co., 254 Ill. 549.

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

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Mechanics’ men, §• 24*—necessity that material be retained in the building. A subcontractor furnishing lumber to a contractor who uses it exclusively in the construction of moulds and forms for the erection of concrete foundations, removing the lumber after the concrete hardens, and none of it becoming part of the building, is not entitled to a mechanic’s lien against the owner. Following Rittenhouse & Embree Co. v. F. E. Brown & Co., 254 Ill. 549.

Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. O'Heron, 183 Ill. App. 391 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

183 Ill. App. 391 (Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. O'Heron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related