M. R. Smith Lumber Co. v. Russell

Citations

• 93 Kan. 521
• 144 P. 819
• 1914 Kan. LEXIS 465

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Lumberman’s Lien — Contractor Had Such Ownership in Premises as to Create Valid Lien. Evidence that a person is in full possession of a tract of land and contracts for material to erect, and does erect, substantial improvements thereon, and who, a short time after making such contract, and while making such improvements, receives from the record owner of such tract a deed conveying such tract to such person in possession, is sufficient to sustain a finding that at the tme of making the contract such person had some ownership in the tract.</p> <p>2. Same — Four Buildings — Single Contract. The contract for materials to erect the four buildings on the single tract was an entire contract.</p> <p>3. Same — Proper Owner Designated in Lien Statement. Under the facts of this case, the person who contracted for the materials and erected the buildings on the tract was the proper person to be designated as the owner thereof in the statement filed for a mechanic’s lien.</p> <p>4. Same — Foreclosure—New Issues in This Court The question whether the action was timely commenced was not presented by the answer in this case and can not be first raised in this court.</p> <p>5. Same — Release of Portion of Land — Lien Not Invalidated. Where a lien for building material exists against an- entire tract of land, the release of a part of the tract in consideration of a fair proportion of the lien does not effect a release of the entire lien.</p> <p>6. Practice — As to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Upon the trial of a case in a district court without a jury, error can not be predicated upon the refusal of the court to answer questions of fact presented where the court states findings of fact and conclusions of law as the statute contemplates.</p>