{
  "id": 2591164,
  "name": "National Bank of La Crosse v. Erick G. Petterson, Adm'r, etc., et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "National Bank v. Petterson",
  "decision_date": "1902-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "501",
  "last_page": "504",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "102 Ill. App. 501"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "171 Ill. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3176298
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/171/0487-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 407,
    "char_count": 7237,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.553,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6013999271772216
    },
    "sha256": "155ac277db27c90b79e4cc904e896729b95279461fb202e5931736a5c841caa9",
    "simhash": "1:76128cb1c48a9901",
    "word_count": 1244
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:51:35.524386+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "National Bank of La Crosse v. Erick G. Petterson, Adm\u2019r, etc., et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nCounsel for appellant call attention to the following excerpt from section 204 of Sutherland on Statutory Construction.\n\u201c When a statute creates a right and also provides the remedy, the latter is exclusive; it implies the negation of any other.\u201d\nThe section of the statute under consideration in this case is a part of a statutory enactment in respect to mechanics\u2019 liens. The statute gives liens and provides methods for the enforcement thereof. Section 24 provides for a lien on the \u201c money bonds or warrant,\u201d \u201c due or to become due \u201d to any contractor for a public improvement; and makes it the duty of the officials whose.duty it is to pay the contractor, having been notified of the lien,\u2018\u2018to withhold a sufficient amount to pay such claim until it is admitted or by law established and thereupon to pay the amount thereof to such person \u201d (lienor).\nIt is manifest that a person bringing himself within the laws of this statute can compel the city to pay him the amount which its officials (agents) are commanded to withhold and pay to him.\nHaving under the statute obtained a lien upon money, bonds or warrants due or to become due a contractor, and duly notified the proper officials of his claim, neither the city nor its officials can deprive him of his lien by transferring the subject thereof; nor can any action upon their or its part divest bonds or warrants of the lien which he has thereon. Spalding Lumber Co. v. Brown, 171 Ill. 487-493.\nIt is conceded that the special assessment bonds are not negotiable instruments. Such being the case appellee holds those it has, subject to the liens existing thereon when they were held by the city. Other sections of the act provide a remedy by proceedings in a court of chancery for liens accruing under section 24, as well as other sections of the mechanics\u2019 lien act.\nThe remedy by suit against officials \u201c violating the duty \u201d imposed is cumulative, not exclusive of that provided by other portions of the statute. If section 24 were an act by itself, it might well be argued that the remedy therein provided was exclusive; a rule being that the provisions and objects of the particular enactment must be looked at in order to discover whether it was intended to confer a right which might be the subject of a common action, or to create a duty sanctioned only by a particular penalty; in which latter case the only remedy for breach of the duty would be by proceedings for the penalty. Vallance v. Falle, L. R. 13, Q. B. Div. 109; O\u2019Flaherty v. McDonnell, 6 House of Lords Cases, 141.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Orville Peckham, attorney for appellant.",
      "Francis M. Lowes, attorney for appellee; Wilbur N. Horner and Fred Bennett, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "National Bank of La Crosse v. Erick G. Petterson, Adm\u2019r, etc., et al.\n1. Mechanic\u2019s Liens\u2014Materials Furnished for Constructing Public Improvements\u2014Notice to Officers.\u2014Any person furnishing material or labor to a contractor for public improvements is entitled to a lien on the money, bonds or warrants due or to become due such contractor for such improvement; provided, such person shall, before any payment or delivery of such bonds or warrants are made to such contractor, notify the officials of such municipality, whose duty it is to pay such contractor, of his claim in writing.\n2. Notice\u2014To Officers of the Municipality\u2014Duty to Withhold Sufficient Funds to Satisfy Such Liens.\u2014It is the duty of the officials of such municipality when so notified, to withhold a sufficient amount to pay such claim until it is admitted, or by law established, and thereupon to pay the amount to such person, and such payment is to be a credit on the contract price to be paid to such contractor.\nPetition for a Mechanic\u2019s Lien, under section 24, Chap. 92, R. S. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tdthill, Judge presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1901.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1902.\nStatement.\u2014Appellee filed a petition for a mechanic\u2019s lien under Section 24, Chapter 92, Eev. Stats., which is as follows:\n\u201c Any person who shall furnish material, apparatus, fixtures, machinery or labor to any contractor for a public improvement in this state shall have a lien on the money, bonds or warrants due or to become due such contractor for such improvement; provided, such person shall, before any payment or delivery thereof is made to such contractor, notify the officials of this state, county, township, city or municipality whose duty it is to pay such contractor, of his claim, by a written notice and the full particulars thereof. It shall lie the duty of such officials so notified to withhold a sufficient amount to pay such claim until it is admitted, or by law established, and thereupon to pay the amount thereof to such person, and such payment shall be a credit on the contract price to be paid to such contractor. Any officer violating the duty hereby imposed upon him shall be liable on his official bond to the person serving such notice for the damages resulting from such violation, which may be recovered in an action at law in any court of competent jurisdiction. There shall be no preference between the persons serving such notice, but all shall be paid pro rata in proportion to the amount due under their respective contracts.\u201d\nApril 30, 1897, John V. McAdam & Son entered into a contract with the city of Chicago for the improvement of what was designated in the contract as the Twenty-sixth System of Streets. About the same date McAdam & Son bought of August Erickson materials for use in carrying out this contract, and the same were so used. McAdam & Son thus became indebted to Erickson, as found in the decree, and failing to pay Erickson, December 7, 1897, gave written notice to the city comptroller and the commissioner of public works of the city, of his claim. This notice was given before the city had delivered to the contractors the bonds hereinafter mentioned, or had otherwise settled with them. In a like manner McAdam & Son became indebted to H. W. Valentine & Son for work done under the same contract with the city and pursued the same course as did McAdam & Son as to giving notice, etc. These notices remained on file in the comptroller\u2019s office after they were given.\nMcAdam & Son partially performed their contract; then assigned it and all their rights under it to William Carden, who completed the work. The assignment to Carden was subsequent to the giving of the notices, by Erickson and Valentine, to the city officials.\nThe improvement was to be paid for by special assessment, and this the city levied in five installments; and against the last four of these installments the city issued special assessment bonds. The city officials, by inadvertence or otherwise, delivered the bonds to the contractor in settlement of his claims under the contract. The contractor sold the bonds, and they being sold again, came into the hands of appellants, by whom they were bought in ignorance of the claims of Erickson and Valentine asserted in this suit. The court found for the petitioners and gave a mechanic\u2019s lien decree for the amount of their claims.\nOrville Peckham, attorney for appellant.\nFrancis M. Lowes, attorney for appellee; Wilbur N. Horner and Fred Bennett, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0501-01",
  "first_page_order": 517,
  "last_page_order": 520
}