Pinkerton v. Le Beau

Citations

• 3 S.D. 440
• 54 N.W. 97
• 1893 S.D. LEXIS 1

Syllabus

<p>1. The mechanic’s lien law of this state should be liberally construed in favor of the mechanic and material man. The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof should be strictly construed, has no application to the Code of this state, the rule having been abrogated by statute.</p> <p>2. As a general rule a person in possession of land under a contract to purchase the same cannot, to the prejudice of the legal owner, subject either the land, or buildings erected by him thereon, to a mechanic’s lion; but by the mechanic’s lien law of this state the general rule has' been changed as to the buildings erected on the land, but not as to the land itself.</p> <p>3. A stipulation in a contract for the sale of land, that it was understood between the parties that the vendee should erect a building upon the land, does not, of itself, constitute the vendee the agent of the vendor, within the meaning of the mechanic’s lien law, nor authorize the vendee to subject the land of the vendor to a lien for material furnished for a building contracted for by such vendee.</p> <p>4. A party in possession of land under a coStract to purchase the same has authority to contract for the erection of buildings or improvements thereon, and to subject such buildings or improvements to the lien of the party furnishing material therefor or performing labor thereon, which buildings or improvements may be sold separately from the land, and removed therefrom by the purchaser, although the vendee may subsequently abandon said premises, and forfeit all his rights under the contract to purchase.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.</p>