McDonald v. Erwin
Citations
- 53 Fla. 1079
Syllabus
<p>1. Under the provisions of chapter 5143, acts of 1903, section 2193 ei> seq. General Statutes of 1906, any person not in privity with the owner of land who shall furnish to a contractor any building material used in the construction, repair or use of any building upon the land, may acquire a lien upon the building and the land upon which it stands, by delivering to the owner or his agent a written notice that the contractor for whom the materials were furnished or are being furnished, is indebted to the person furnishing the material in the sum stated in the notice; and the lien shall exist from the time of the service of such notice for the amount unpaid on the contract by the owner to the contractor. The service of the notice also creates a personal liability against the owner of the property in favor of the lienor giving the notice, for the amount due by the owner at the time of the service of the notice to the contractor for whom the materials were furnished.</p> <p>2. Chapter 5143, acts of 1903, section 2213 General Statutes of 1906, authorizes a materialman, not in privity with the owner of the land, to enforce by bill in equity his lien acquired upon the building and the land upon which it stands for materials furnished and used in the construc- . tion or repair of such building. The decree in such proceeding may provide for the recovery from the owner of the land of the amount due by him to the contractor on the contract at the time of the service of the notice, as well as declare and enforce the lien against the' property of such owner for such amount.</p> <p>3. Where a bill in equity brought to enforce the lien of a materialman upon land, alleges that the complainant furnished materials to a contractor which were used in the construction of a building on the land; that a written notice claiming a lien was given by the complainants to the owner of the land; that the complainants had been and were furnishing material to the contractor, stating the estimat
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding blanket order staying discovery on main issue because of related criminal proceeding was abuse of discretion because it vitiated defendant’s ability to prepare defense in civil case
- explaining that trial court “has an obligation to weigh each discovery request and apply the law for discovery or protection to each request by determining the least restrictive way to protect both cases and the defendant’s right to defend himself in this suit”
- explaining that trial court \has an obligation to weigh each discovery request and apply the law for discovery or protection to each request by determining the least restrictive way to protect both cases and the defendant's right to defend himself in this suit\
- trial court has obligation to weigh each discovery request and determine least restrictive way to protect both cases
- witness’s right to claim protection from discovery does not stop all proceedings in civil case involving witness
- “The trial court has an obligation to weigh each discovery request and apply the law for discovery or protection to each request by determining the least restrictive way to protect both cases and the defendant’s right to defend himself in this suit.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.