144 Minn. 24 | Minn. | 1919
Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The defendant Mortgage Land Investment Company is the landowner. The defendant Glenn is the trustee of the National Manufacturing & 'Supply Company and is a lien claiming defendant. The controversy is between the trustee and the landowner. There was judgment for the trustee. The Mortgage Land Investment Company 'appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.
There are three questions:
(1) Whether the materials were furnished by the trustee on the basis of their reasonable value, as he claims, or at a fixed price, as claimed by the investment company.
(2) Whether there were defects in certain of the materials furnished for which an allowance should have been made.
(3) Whether the lien claimant in the lien filed knowingly demanded more than was due so that he is precluded by G. S. 1913, § 7085, from having a lien.
Upon all points the trial court found against the owner.
It seems that such a contract as is claimed by the owner máde in a time of rising prices, was an unlikely one. It fairly appears, or at least
The finding covering the toilet fixtures and appliances is less well supported. The evidence justified a reduction for defects. A reduction might well enough have been made. Still there was evidence in support of a finding that they were substantially of the character sold. We have gone over the evidence with very great care. Upon mature consideration we reach the conclusion that the question was for the trial court and that the finding must stand.
Judgment and order affirmed.
On January 23, 1920, the following opinion was filed:
On the application of the appellant a rehearing was granted. We have reconsidered the questions involved in the light of the additional briefs filed and are of the opinion that the ease was rightly decided. We adhere to onr former decision and the order from which the appeal is taken stands affirmed.