Mechanic’s Lien. — Petition held good on motion to arrest judgment.
Appeal from, Clark Circuit Court.
S. Kibbe, for respondents.
Givens, Bush and Rutherford, for appellants.
The plaintiffs filed their petition as follows:
Plaintiffs state that about the month of-, A. D. 1858, Squire Worrell employed plaintiffs to build a dwelling-house in the town of Waterloo, in Clark county, Mo., which is situated on lot No. 200, in block No. 23, in said town mentioned aforesaid.
Plaintiffs further state, that they (plaintiffs) completed said house on or about the 19th day of December, 1858, according to contract with said Worrell. Plaintiffs further state, that the said Worrell was to furnish all the materials for building said house, and plaintiffs were to do all the carpenters’ work upon said house for the sum of seventy-six dollars, which amount was to be paid as soon as the carpenter work was completed. Plaintiffs further state, that on or about the first of January, 1859, the said Worrell sold said house to Isaac Fields.
Plaintiffs further state, that the said Fields purchased the house with a full knowledge that plaintiffs built the house, *158•which he purchased from the said Worrell as aforesaid, and that on or aboiit — day of January, 1859, the said Melds took a mortgage upon the property of Worrell for the purpose of securing himself in the event that plaintiffs should file their lien upon said house. Plaintiffs further state, that they (plaintiffs) filed their mechanic’s lien upon the said house mentioned aforesaid on the 8th day of February, 1859, for the amount that was then due plaintiffs, which was sixty-two dollars.
Plaintiffs further state, that the mortgage mentioned aforesaid will appear of record in the recorder’s office, and that the lien mentioned aforesaid is on file in said office. Plaintiffs therefore ask judgment for the amount of said lien, which is sixty-two dollars, and interest from the filing thereof, and for general relief.
Fields filed his answer, and after trial and judgment for the plaintiffs, filed his motion in arrest of judgment, and which was overruled.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The plaintiff got judgment for thirty dollars. The only exception in the case is to the refusal of the defendant’s motion to arrest the judgment. We find no error in that refusal. The petition, though inartificially drawn, contains a sufficient statement of the plaintiffs’ cause of action.
Judgment affirmed.
Judges Bay and Dryden concur.
33 Mo. 157
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!