Schulenberg v. Prairie Home Institute

65 Mo. 295
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 65 Mo. 295 (Schulenberg v. Prairie Home Institute) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schulenberg v. Prairie Home Institute, 65 Mo. 295 (Mo. 1877).

Opinion

Hough, J.

This was a suit to enforce a mechanics’ lien [296]*296for certain lumber furnished by the plaintiffs, under a contract with the defendant Ross, who was a sub-contractor, to be used in the erection of a building, for the Prairie Home Institute. The petition stated all the facts necessary to give a lien, and among them that the lumber was used in the construction of said building. The defendant Ross made default. The answer of the Prairie Home Institute was framed under the act of March 18, 1875 (acts 1875, p. 106), and was a general denial of any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the facts stated in the petition. This was a sufficient denial that the materials in question were used in the defendant’s building. The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that, unless they believed from the evidence that the lumber sued for was actually used in the construction of the building upon which the lien is claimed, they should find for the defendant, the Prairie Home Institute. This instruction the court refused to give, but instructed on this point that it was only necessary to find that the lumber was sold by plaintiffs to said Ross to be used in erecting the building mentioned in the petition. It was expressly decided in the case of Simmons, Garth et al. v. Carrier et al., 60 Mo. 582, and in Fitzpatrick v. Thomas, 61 Mo. 516, that a material man has no lien upon any building save for such materials as actually enter into its construction, and in the former case instructions substantially the same as those now under consideration wei'e presented by the respective parties at the trial and passed upon by this court. Under our ruling in that case, the instruction asked by the defendant in this case should have been given, and that given for the plaintiff should have been refused. Eor this error the judgment of the circuit court will be reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

Reversed.

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

Related

Boyer Lumber, Inc. v. Blair
510 S.W.2d 738 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1974)
Davidson v. Fisher
258 S.W.2d 297 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1953)
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Culbertson Hotel Co.
205 P. 957 (Montana Supreme Court, 1922)
Rogers-Templeton Lumber Co. v. Welch
184 P. 838 (Montana Supreme Court, 1919)
E. R. Darlington Lumber Co. v. Westlake Construction Co.
141 S.W. 931 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
United States Water Co. v. Sunny Slope Realty Co.
133 S.W. 371 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Francis & Nygren Foundry Co. v. King Knob Coal Co.
126 N.W. 39 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1910)
State v. Gregory
71 S.W. 170 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Missoula Mercantile Co. v. O'Donnell
60 P. 594 (Montana Supreme Court, 1900)
A. M. Stevens Lumber Co. v. Kansas City Lumber Co.
72 Mo. App. 248 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Current River Lumber Co. v. Cravens
54 Mo. App. 216 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1893)
Fathman & Miller Planing Mill Co. v. Ritter
33 Mo. App. 404 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
Henry & Coatsworth Co. v. Evans
97 Mo. 47 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Deardorff v. Everhartt
74 Mo. 37 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)
Schulenburg v. Vrooman
7 Mo. App. 133 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 Mo. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schulenberg-v-prairie-home-institute-mo-1877.