Matzinger v. Harvard Lumber Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Matzinger v. Harvard Lumber Co.

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 870

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1926

DocketNo. 20041

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 870 (Matzinger v. Harvard Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matzinger v. Harvard Lumber Co., 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 870 (Ohio 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

MATTHIAS, J.

1. The provisions of Section 8312, General Code, requiring notice to be served upon the owner of a structure being erected under contract, apply to the contractor and sub-contractor but not to material men.

2. Whether materials furnished by a dealer to a contractor to be used in the process of the erection of a building were selected from the stock of the dealer or made by him in his own establishment or procured from another dealer, having nothing to do relative to the installation of said materials or the fabrication thereof into the structure, is a material man and not a sub-contractor.

3. The provisions of Section 8323, General Code, authorize the payment of an attorney fee only out of the fund realized for lien claimants, which fund is the sum applicable to the payment of mechanics’ lien claims found to be valid.

Jones, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur. Marshall, CJ.,, concurs in propositions 1 and 2 of the syllabus and in the judgment.

Judgment modified and affirmed.

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