{
  "id": 2657195,
  "name": "Frank W. Howes et al., Appellees, v. John C. Sprankle et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Howes v. Sprankle",
  "decision_date": "1909-02-04",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,166",
  "first_page": "497",
  "last_page": "501",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 Ill. App. 497"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 395,
    "char_count": 7495,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "sha256": "cd18223f6b97ae2eb61b10b8e8783c596c2d0bfc969de3f031ca35acd1531241",
    "simhash": "1:7a4a5feaff35c20a",
    "word_count": 1262
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:03:54.613219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank W. Howes et al., Appellees, v. John C. Sprankle et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellees filed their petition for a mechanic\u2019s lien, under the Illinois statute concerning mechanics\u2019 liens, upon property of appellant, John G. Sprankle, numbered 5012 Michigan avenue, Chicago. The appellant Moses R. Greenebaum is trustee in a trust deed given by Sprankle conveying the property as security for a loan of $9,000. The cause was referred to a master, who reported in favor of the lien being established and recommended that a decree to that effect be entered. The objections to the master\u2019s report, after being overruled by him, were by leave of court allowed to stand as exceptions before the chancellor to the master\u2019s report, which exceptions the chancellor overruled and entered a decree in accordance with the master\u2019s recommendations, from which decree this appeal is prosecnted.\nThe lien sought to be established is that of a subcontractor.\nC. B. Fockler contracted with Sprangle, the owner, to furnish the carpenter work and certain hardware for Sprankle\u2019s building for $3,459. Fockler made a contract with appellees to furnish certain lumber to be used in the construction of Sprankle\u2019s building to the amount of $900, and they claim that they in fact furnished such lumber to the value of $1,038.58, and that there remained due and unphid thereon $438.58; that the last delivery of material was made April 7, 1904, at which time the last payment became due; that before Fockler completed his contract, and on March 28, 1904, he abandoned it, and Sprankle, at his own cost, completed the Fockler contract, so that at the time appellees sought to enforce their lien no money was due Fockler upon his contract for any work done or material furnished by him thereunder; that Greenebaum, from money in his hands, proceeds of the $9,000 loan, made two payments to appellees of $300 each, one on January 12, 1904, and the other on February 9,1904; that for each of these payments Seator, the architect in charge of the work on the building, issued a certificate to Fockler, addressed to Sprankle, who endorsed thereon an order to G-reenebaum Sons for its payment.\nThe master reported that on January 11, 1904, Fockler made a sworn statement and delivered the same to Greenebaum, showing the amount then due appellees and the further sum of $300 to become due them for material to be furnished. The master further reports \u201cthat Sprankle did not have personal knowledge or notice of said sworn statement of January 11, 1904.\u201d\nIn the view we take of this record, the right to sustain the decree establishing a lien rests upon the question as to whether Greenebaum was the agent of Sprankle to receive the sworn statement made by Fockler, the contractor, so that delivery to Greenebaum was a sufficient compliance with the statute and constructive notice to Sprankle, the owner, of its contents. The master having found that Sprankle did not have actual notice, appellees can only prevail upon the theory that through the agency of Greenebaum service upon him as agent by construction was tantamount to service upon Sprankle as principal.\nThere is no evidence, in this record that Greenebaum was the agent of Sprankle for the purpose of receiving for him sworn statements provided to be furnished the owner in section 5, chapter 52 B. S., title \u201cLiens.\u201d Greenebaum was trustee, and as such the agent of the lender as well as the borrower in paying out money on the loan. He was interested as such trustee in protecting the mortgaged property from liens accruing in the construction of the building on the mortgaged real estate, so that the lien of the mortgage for the amount loaned should not be impaired. Falker, a clerk in the Greenebaum bank, testified that contractor Fockler\u2019s statement was taken and acknowledged before him; that it was taken before any payments were made and for the purpose of making payments to contractors from the money loaned. Greenebaum says the sworn statement was procured by his assistant before paying vonchers from the loan. Sprankle testifies that the amount of the loan was paid out on orders directed to Greenebaum Sons, \u201cthe same as if I were to issue an order or check on them;\u201d that he knew nothing about the sworn statement of January 11, 1904, until shown to him at the Greenebaum bank about May 1, 1904, and that he did not know that appellees were furnishing lumber for his building until after Fockler abandoned work thereon under his contract March 28, 1904.\nThe proof fails to support the contention that Greenebaum was the agent of Sprankle to receive contractor Fockler\u2019s sworn statement. It is not pretended by any witness testifying that this statement was received by Greenebaum otherwise than on his own account and for his own protection in paying out the money loaned. For the purpose of paying out the money Greenebaum was the trustee of both borrower and lender, but this was the extent and limit of his agency. So far, therefore, as Sprankle, the owner, is concerned, the sworn statement required by the statute was not made to him, or to any one for him authorized to receive it, so as to fasten notice upon him.\nAppellees\u2019 claim rests for its support on those sections\" of the Lien Act supra applicable to subcontractors. Section 21 is controlling of their rights. In regard to the notice under discussion this section provides: \u201cBut where the contractor\u2019s statement, made as provided in section five (5), shows the amount to be paid to the subcontractor, or party furnishing material, or the subcontractor\u2019s statement, made pursuant to section twenty-one (21), shows the amount to become due for the material, or notice is given to the owner, as provided in sections twenty-four (24) and twenty-five (25) * * * then and in any of such cases such subcontractors * * * shall have a lien therefor to the extent of the amount named in such statements or notice.\u201d Neither of these provisions having been complied with, the foundation for the right to maintain the action is absent, and consequently, regardless of all other questions, it is patent that appellees have failed to establish their right to a lien upon appellant Sprankle\u2019s property, or their right to supersede the lien of the Greenehaum trust deed.\nAs it is our opinion, for reasons already assigned, that appellees cannot maintain their claim for a lien, the decree of the Superior Court is reversed without remanding.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frederick Mains, for appellants.",
      "Dunn & Hayes, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank W. Howes et al., Appellees, v. John C. Sprankle et al., Appellants.\nGen. No. 14,166.\n1. Mechanic\u2019s liens\u2014who not agent of owner to receive sworn statement provided for by section 5. A trustee named in a trust deed securing the loan provided for the construction of the building upon the property upon which a lien is sought, while for some purposes the agent of both the mortgagee and the owner, is not an agent, unless specially so authorized, to receive the sworn statement provided for by section 5 of the Mechanic\u2019s Lien Act.\n2. Mechanic\u2019s liens\u2014when subcontractor not entitled to lien. A subcontractor is not entitled to a lien (no money being due to the contractor) unless notice of his claim has been brought to the owner in some one of the ways specified by section 21 of the Mechanic\u2019s Lien Act.\nMechanic\u2019s lien. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Willabd M. McEwen, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1907.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed February 4, 1909.\nFrederick Mains, for appellants.\nDunn & Hayes, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0497-01",
  "first_page_order": 539,
  "last_page_order": 543
}