Louis Bradford Lumber Co. v. Creel

Nebraska Supreme Court

Louis Bradford Lumber Co. v. Creel

141 N.W. 145, 93 Neb. 573, 1913 Neb. LEXIS 120

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedApril 17, 1913

DocketNo. 17,124

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 N.W. 145 (Louis Bradford Lumber Co. v. Creel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louis Bradford Lumber Co. v. Creel, 141 N.W. 145, 93 Neb. 573, 1913 Neb. LEXIS 120 (Neb. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on a house and two lots in Omaha. Plaintiff, as a subcontractor, furnished material for the house, and filed a lien for $166.39, the balance claimed to be due. George Dun-ham was the contractor. When the materials were furnished, Minnie O.- Creel owned the lots, but before this suit was instituted she and her husband sold them to Andrew Sohler; the transfer having been made January 15, 1909, and plaintiff’s petition having been filed August 17, 1909. Creel and wife, Sohler and wife, and Dunham are defendants. From a decree foreclosing plaintiff’s lien defendant, Minnie C. Creel, has appealed.

As a reason for reversing the decree of foreclosure, it is asserted: “The action is barred, as the same was not commenced as to the owner of the real estate within two years of the filing of the lien.” The lien was filed De[574]*574cember 12, 1907, and personal service of summons was not made upon Solder until January 6, 1910. Proof of service by publication, however, had been filed November 2, 1909, and this was within the statutory period of two years, but defendant asserts it was void. Constructive service was based on an affidavit that Sohler was a nonresident, upon whom personal service could not he made in Nebraska. Nonresidence was a controverted issue of fact, with evidence on both sides. The trial court found that Sohler was a resident of Iowa, and the more convincing proofs sustain that conclusion. It is therefore adopted as correct, and prevents a reversal on this ground.

Defendant also argues the following proposition: “Plaintiff’s material was furnished under at least three distinct contracts, and, at the date of filing the lien, the time for filing the same had expired as to all of the contracts and the materials covered by the same, except as ro its last set of items, totaling $86.14, and these items were paid for on November 13, 1907.”

The evidence indicates a continuous course of dealing under one contract, and plaintiff was entitled to the balance due for material furnished thereunder. The trial court properly so found, and that conclusion defeats this defense. No error has been found, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Reese, C. J., Barnes and Fawcett, JJ., concur. Letton, Sedgwick and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.

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

Rose, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on a house and two lots in Omaha. Plaintiff, as a subcontractor, furnished material for the house, and filed a lien for $166.39, the balance claimed to be due. George Dun-ham was the contractor. When the materials were furnished, Minnie O.- Creel owned the lots, but before this suit was instituted she and her husband sold them to Andrew Sohler; the transfer having been made January 15, 1909, and plaintiff’s petition having been filed August 17, 1909. Creel and wife, Sohler and wife, and Dunham are defendants. From a decree foreclosing plaintiff’s lien defendant, Minnie C. Creel, has appealed.

As a reason for reversing the decree of foreclosure, it is asserted: “The action is barred, as the same was not commenced as to the owner of the real estate within two years of the filing of the lien.” The lien was filed De[574]*574cember 12, 1907, and personal service of summons was not made upon Solder until January 6, 1910. Proof of service by publication, however, had been filed November 2, 1909, and this was within the statutory period of two years, but defendant asserts it was void. Constructive service was based on an affidavit that Sohler was a nonresident, upon whom personal service could not he made in Nebraska. Nonresidence was a controverted issue of fact, with evidence on both sides. The trial court found that Sohler was a resident of Iowa, and the more convincing proofs sustain that conclusion. It is therefore adopted as correct, and prevents a reversal on this ground.

Defendant also argues the following proposition: “Plaintiff’s material was furnished under at least three distinct contracts, and, at the date of filing the lien, the time for filing the same had expired as to all of the contracts and the materials covered by the same, except as ro its last set of items, totaling $86.14, and these items were paid for on November 13, 1907.”

The evidence indicates a continuous course of dealing under one contract, and plaintiff was entitled to the balance due for material furnished thereunder. The trial court properly so found, and that conclusion defeats this defense. No error has been found, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Reese, C. J., Barnes and Fawcett, JJ., concur. Letton, Sedgwick and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 N.W. 145, 93 Neb. 573, 1913 Neb. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-bradford-lumber-co-v-creel-neb-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack