Clark v. Manning

Citations

• 90 Ill. 380

Syllabus

<p>1. Mechanic’s lien—when no time is fixed for completing contract or for payment. Where work is done in the erection of a building under a written agreement, in which no time is fixed for the completion of the work, but the same is completed within a year from the commencement of the labor, the workmen will be entitled to a lien, under the act of 1861.</p> <p>2. The act of 1861 gives the mechanic or material-man a lien upon the premises for labor performed or materials furnished the owner at his request for erecting or repairing any building on his land, within one year from the date of the undertaking, whether the contract is expressed or arises by implication from the acts of the parties.</p> <p>3. Same—misdescription of premises in contract. A misdescription of the premises upon which work and labor are done in the erection of a building, in the written contract of the parties, will not prevent the laborer from having his lien upon the premises which are truly described in the petition, and upon which the work was actually done.</p> <p>4. Fokmek decisions. The cases of Fish. v. Stubbings, 65 Ill. 492, and Powell v. Webber, 79 Ill. 134, in so far as they hold it essential to the existence of a mechanic’s lien that the contract, whether express or implied, should prescribe th.e time within which the work must be completed, or the materials furnished, are overruled. The rule in that regard was changed by the act of 1861.</p>