99 P.2d 496 | Okla. | 1940
Plaintiff, Overall, brought this action to foreclose a mechanic's lien for work done as a carpenter on property owned by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
The sole question involved is whether the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant's husband, who employed plaintiff to do the work, was defendant's agent. We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the agency of the husband is thereby sufficiently established. Without going into detail, it is sufficient to say that the facts and circumstances shown, as well as the admissions of the defendant, lead to the conclusion that the work was done for her, and that she knew that plaintiff had been employed for such purpose by the husband, and accepted his services with such knowledge.
It is settled that before a lien can be established against real estate, the contract must be made with the owner or his duly authorized agent, and that the right to the lien depends on such contract. Deka Development Co. v. Fox (1934)
We find nothing in the cases of Whitfield v. Frensley Bros. Lumber Co. (1930)
Affirmed.
BAYLESS, C. J., and RILEY, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.