Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. O'Heron

Appellate Court of Illinois

Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. O'Heron

183 Ill. App. 391

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 24, 1913

DocketGen. No. 18,287

StatusPublished

This text of 183 Ill. App. 391 (Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. O'Heron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 Ill. App. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-hines-lumber-co-v-oheron-illappct-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack