Work v. Hall

Citations

• 79 Ill. 196

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancery—decree pro confesso upon exceptions sustained, to answer. Where exceptions to an answer are allowed, and the remainder of the answer presents no material issue, and the defendant makes no further answer, it is proper to decree that the petition of the complainant be taken as confessed, for want of an answer.</p> <p>3. Mechanic’s men-—what deemed the commencement of suit to enforce. Where material was furnished by a firm, under a contract, up to a given time, when the firm was changed, one partner retiring and others becoming partners, and the contract was, by arrangement with all the parties, completed by the new firm, who were to be paid for all material furnished after that time, and a petition by the members of the original firm, to enforce a lien for all material furnished by both firms, under the contract, was filed, and subsequently a petition in the same case was filed by the new firm to enforce their lien, it was held, that the filing of the last petition should not be regarded as the commencement of the suit to enforce the lien of the petitioners therein, but that the filing of the first petition was, however irregularly, the commencement of the suit for that purpose, and it was competent, under the 13th and 13th sections of the statute relating to liens, for the members of the new firm to be made parties thereto, at any timé before final judgment.</p> <p>3. Same—liability of subsequent purchasers. It is improper, in a proceeding to enforce a mechanic’s lien, to decree that a defendant, who has no connection with the matter except as a subsequent purchaser of the property, shall pay the debt. Such purchaser is under no obligation to pay the debt, unless he chooses to do so to protect his title. The lien attaches to the property, but it can not be enforced against subsequent purchasers not otherwise liable for the payment of the debt, beyond the sal'e of the property.</p>