105 Iowa 648 | Iowa | 1898
— On tlie twenty-seventh day of June, 1895, the parties to this action entered into an agreement the terms of which were expressed in a writing signed by the plaintiff, and a copy of which is as follows: “This agreement, made and entered- into this twenty-seventh day of June, 1895, by and- between E. G-. Hoppes, of State Center, Iowa, and Andrew Ba-ie, witnesseth: That said E. G. Hoppes ha® this day agreed to drill a well for said Baie on the farm occupied by Albert Baie, southeast of State Center, and furnish and place therein five (5) inch inserted joint iron casing, as far as possible, and privilege of reducing when, necessary, and agrees to sink said well until a good and sufficient flow of water is obtained, or he says stop, he being satisfied with well; and, if said well fails, said E. G. Hoppes ■ agrees to return and sink same not to exceed one thousand (1,000) feet, and test same before leaving; and said Andrew Baie agrees to pay said E. G. Hoppes therefor tli-e sum of one dollar per foot in cash upon turning over said well to said Baie, or his note bearing interest at 8 per ■cent, per annum, and said Baie further agrees to furnish board for men and teams while at work on said well. Witness our hands, this twenty-seventh day of •June, 1895. E. G. Hoppes.” Acting under that agreement the plaintiff drilled and cased, on the farm of. the defendant designated, a well to the depth of two hundred and forty-four feet, and in December, 1895, filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Marshall county, Iowa, a verified statement for a mechanic’s lien, in which he claimed, on account of the well, one dollar per foot for the first one hundred feet, one dollar and twenty-five cents per foot for the second one hundred feet, and one dollar and fifty cents per foot for the remainder, eighteen dollars for the board of two men- for three weeks, and ten dollars for putting a pum-p in the well on four different occasions, or for the
II. The remaining questions discussed in the arguments submitted to us depend upon the evidence, which is voluminous and conflicting, -and need'not be set out. We are satisfied that a preponderance of the evidence ■shows that the plaintiff performed substantially all the requirements of the agreement on- his part; that the well furnished a good and sufficient flow of water, as~ shown by repeated tests; and that the defendant was