The appellants in this case are James G. Winstanley and Jacob B. Emminger, purchasers of
It is urged that Livesey cannot maintain an action аs the assignee of the claim for a lien, because such lien, as alleged, was not perfected when the assignment thereof was made. The filing was of date October 22, 1891. The assignment was made February 25 thereafter, so that the facts are not correctly assumed for the purposes of this argument. Before the claim fоr a lien was filed J. R. Hamilton gave his note for $500, a part of the amount due to John McGowan, who indorsed the same to Henry Livesey, by whom it was discounted at a bank. Not bеing' paid at maturity the note was taken up by Henry Livesey, who now holds the same as оwner. As already stated, McGowan transferred to Henry Livesey his whole claim for a lien as an entirety. We, therefore, cannot understand how this assignment can be injuriously affected by the mere fact that Livesey holds a note for $500 evidencing as due him a part of the claim in respect to which the mechanic’s lien held by him was filеd. There
There was mаde a defendant Christian Specht, by whom there was filed a cross-petition in which he alleged that under a verbal agreement he had furnished material and performed labor in improving the real property above referred to; that after allowing all credits for payments made there still remained due $280. There was in the cross-petition of Christian Specht this language: “This defendant further represents that аs a part of said indebtedness the said John R. Hamilton executed and delivered tо this defendant by the name, style, and description of Western Cornice Works, his promissоry note for the principal sum of $265,” etc. There are urged in opposition to the enforcement of Mr. Specht’s lien the objections that the above dеscribed note had been by him used as collaterál security, and that whatever clаim really exists is in favor of the Western Cornice Works and not in favor of Specht. As indicated by the language above quoted, the designation “Western Cornice Works” was not employed to indicate a corporation or company, but it wаs a picturesque and fanciful description of Mr. Specht, invented and used by himself. Thе evidence shows that he was the sole proprietor and manager of the business and property and controlled it absolutely, although in doing so its propriеtorship and management were referred to by him as that of the “Western Cornice Works.” By this fiction no one was deceived, and it is not suggested that any one interested was not aware of the identity of Christian Specht with the
No other question is discussed by the appellants, and the judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.