Spencer v. Barney
O. W. SPENCER v. DANIEL H. BARNEY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author), Lawrence F. Terry, Solomon Heydenfeldt
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
MURRAY, C. J.
— The facts relied on in this ease, to establish fraud in procuring the execution of the note and mortgage, were insufficient and the evidence was properly excluded.
As to the mechanic’s or lumberman’s lien, it is not shown that the materials were delivered under any contract for such a quantity or so much lumber; but they appear to have been delivered from time to time as they were needed and purchased by the defendant; the lien therefore only extends to the amount so delivered, at the time of recording the mortgage. On the whole, we regard this as a delay case.
Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent damages.
We concur: Heydenfeldt, J.; Terry, J.