No. 5163 | Neb. | Nov 7, 1894
This action was brought by appellee Howell in the district court of Hall county, for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien for lumber furnished for the erection of a dwelling house on a lot owned by Emma Schlotfeldt. William Wilier, Frank C. Phillips, and Rittenhouse & Brage, as holders of mechanics’ liens against the same property, were
In the brief for appellants it is said that “ as to the defendant Wilier, there is no contention except as he is connected with the general decree rendered by the court.” Probably by this it is meant that he is brought into this court that all parties concerned may be here either as appellants or appellees. Whatever the intention may be in the use of this language, it presents no question by way of argument, and hence we dismiss Mr. Wilier from further consideration.
As to the claim of appellee Howell, the contention was, and is, that he agreed to furnish lumber at a certain rate as fixed by a statement submitted to him as the proposition of some lumber dealer in Omaha. On the one hand it was testified that there was, at the time of the original agreement, a stipulation that to the list price a margin should be allowed for trouble of hauling the lumber, etc. This was denied by the Schlotfeldts. There was also a credit claimed by the Schlotfeldts on account of lumber returned. Mr. Schlotfeldt, in giving his evidence, was unable to state whether the lumber which he had testified that he returned had been charged in HowelPs bill or not. Both these matters were heard on conflicting evidence, and the judgment of the district court in respect to them, therefore, cannot be reviewed.
As against the claim of Rittenhouse & Brage, there were set up counter-claims by way of damages. This firm drew
There was also a claim made that by reason of certain plate glass being placed outside, as required by the specifications, instead of inside the sash, appellants were greatly damaged. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether plate glass should be placed outside or inside, and we cannot say the trial court erred in giving the weight it did to the evidence on this point. The judgment of the-district court is
Affirmed.