Mills v. Britt

Citations

• 56 Fla. 839

Syllabus

<p>1. The statute enacting that a lien may be acquired as against the owner of land upon the building and the land on which it stands, by the performance of labor or the furnishing of material used in the construction or repair of the building, and providing that such lien shall be enforceable by persons in privity with the owner by bill in equity or by suit at law, is not violative of the constitutional guaranty of a jury trial, since the lien given by the statute is not known to the common law anti was not triable by jury when the first constitution of the state became effective.</p> <p>2. A bill in equity to enforce a statutory mechanics and laborers lien is not ordinarilly an action to recover on a contract, even though the labor and material were furnished in accordance with a contract.</p> <p>3. A bill of complaint alleging the furnishing by complainant of the labor and material used in a house upon designated land and the non-payment therefor, and praying for a judicial enforcement of the statutory lien for the amount due, is not so vague, indefinite and uncertain as not to be sufficient to require an answer.</p> <p>4. Where there is evidence to sustain a decree enforcing a statutory lien as to the amount, and as to attorney fees allowed under the statute, the decree will not be disturbed on the ground that it is not sustained by the evidence.</p> <p>5. In equity causes costs are awarded in the sound discretion of the court as justice may require in the particular rase; and the appellate court will not interfere unless abuse of discretion is made to appear.</p>