Haynes-Langenberg Mfg. Co. v. Houser

Missouri Court of Appeals

Haynes-Langenberg Mfg. Co. v. Houser

121 S.W. 1078, 142 Mo. App. 714, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 289

DecidedOctober 19, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.W. 1078 (Haynes-Langenberg Mfg. Co. v. Houser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haynes-Langenberg Mfg. Co. v. Houser, 121 S.W. 1078, 142 Mo. App. 714, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 289 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

REYNOLDS, P. J.

Suit for debt against tbe defendant Houser, principal contractor, and to enforce a lien against the lot of buildings erected thereon against the other defendants, as owners of the property.

There was conflicting evidence as to the date of completion and acceptance of the work and machinery. Error is assigned on the refusal of the court to instruct the jury to find for defendants — outside of defendant Houser — against plaintiffs’ claim for a mechanic’s lien, to the instructions given and to the verdict sustaining the lien.

An examination of the record as set out in the abstract fails to sustain any of these assignments. The main question in the case is one of fact, involving the date of completion of the work, or acceptance of it as complete, and as to whether the lien account was filed within four months thereafter. If one set of witnesses gave the facts and dates correctly, the lien should stand, if the other set is followed, the verdict and judgment are wrong. This presented an issue for the jury, who were correctly instructed and found for the debt as well as the lien — in fact Houser, the contractor debtor defendant does not appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

REYNOLDS, P. J.

Suit for debt against tbe defendant Houser, principal contractor, and to enforce a lien against the lot of buildings erected thereon against the other defendants, as owners of the property.

There was conflicting evidence as to the date of completion and acceptance of the work and machinery. Error is assigned on the refusal of the court to instruct the jury to find for defendants — outside of defendant Houser — against plaintiffs’ claim for a mechanic’s lien, to the instructions given and to the verdict sustaining the lien.

An examination of the record as set out in the abstract fails to sustain any of these assignments. The main question in the case is one of fact, involving the date of completion of the work, or acceptance of it as complete, and as to whether the lien account was filed within four months thereafter. If one set of witnesses gave the facts and dates correctly, the lien should stand, if the other set is followed, the verdict and judgment are wrong. This presented an issue for the jury, who were correctly instructed and found for the debt as well as the lien — in fact Houser, the contractor debtor defendant does not appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.W. 1078, 142 Mo. App. 714, 1909 Mo. App. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-langenberg-mfg-co-v-houser-moctapp-1909.