{
  "id": 2874063,
  "name": "J. A. Svenson, Defendant in Error, v. George C. Stamm et al., Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Svenson v. Stamm",
  "decision_date": "1915-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,798",
  "first_page": "554",
  "last_page": "559",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 554"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 436,
    "char_count": 9146,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "f20ea490efe788ef2214ad48853736e3f02a035119909ff473f544c69d8951c6",
    "simhash": "1:99d742bc4b8e9046",
    "word_count": 1537
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. A. Svenson, Defendant in Error, v. George C. Stamm et al., Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Mechanics\u2019 mens, \u00a7 202 \u2014when judgment for subcontractor erroneous. In an action under Mechanics\u2019 Liens Act, section 28 (J. & A. If 7166), by a subcontractor to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien for building stairs in a building, a judgment not against all the owners and all the contractors is erroneous.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adams, Crews, Bobb & Wescott, for plaintiff in error.",
      "M. M. Jacobs, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. A. Svenson, Defendant in Error, v. George C. Stamm et al., Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 20,798.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Fred C. Hill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by J. A. Svenson, plaintiff, against George C. Stamm, Henry Stafford and Nils A. Sundholm, defendants, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien on a contract for building stairs in a building. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $550 against defendants jointly, defendants prosecute this writ of error.\nIn his statement of claim plaintiff alleged that his claim was for $550, and was \u201cfor balance owing on fifteen (15) flights of main stairs placed in building at No. 912-932 Airdrie Place, Chicago.\u201d An authorized agent of the four original defendants filed an affidavit of merits in their behalf in which it was denied that any balance on said stairs was due to plaintiff from them or any one of them. On May 27,1914, on motion of plaintiff, the court ordered that all records, papers and proceedings be amended by making \u201cCarl A. Bydquist and Nils A. Sundholm, doing business as Bydquist & Sundholm, co-defendants herein.\u201d ' Subsequently both Bydquist and Sundholm were duly served with process and each entered a separate appearance. Bydquist filed an affidavit of merits in which he denied owing any sum of money to plaintiff, and alleged that he had never purchased any stairs from plaintiff; that he had not been a partner with Sundholm since some time in May, 1913, and that plaintiff had had notice that he was not a partner with Sundholm when he (plaintiff) sold the stairs in question to Sundholm. On June 15, 1914, Sundholm was defaulted for failure to file an affidavit of merits. At the commencement of the trial, July 1,1914, which was before the court without a jury, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit as to defendant Bydquist; and during the trial the court dismissed the suit as to the defendants Edith M. Stamm and May Stafford.\nAt the conclusion of all the evidence, the defendants George C. Stamm and Henry Stafford moved that the court dismiss the suit as to them, which motion the court overruled and said defendants excepted.\nThe evidence disclosed, in substance, the following facts: The premises and building at Nos. 912-932 Airdrie Place, Chicago, were in May, 1913, owned by the four defendants, George C. Stamm and Henry Stafford and their respective wives, and they continued to be the owners up to the time of the trial. The defendants George C. Stamm and Henry Stafford were partners, and they entered into a contract for the erection of a building upon said premises with the Rydquist & Sundholm Company, which was then a partnership, composed of Carl A. Rydquist and Nils A. Sundholm. On May 16,1913, after the making of the original contract, plaintiff, who was in the business of manufacturing stairs, entered into a subcontract in writing with said Rydquist & Sundholm Company, wherein he agreed to furnish and set up in said building fifteen flights of main stairs, according to certain plans and specifications, for the sum of $1,150. A few days after the signing of said subcontract, plaintiff informed Henry Stafford that he had made such contract, that he did not think said company was financially responsible and that he was not satisfied to go ahead with the contract. According to plaintiff\u2019s testimony Stafford replied: \u201cI am going to superintend the job myself. You go ahead and do the work. I will take care of you. I will see that your money is paid.\u201d About June 1, 1913, according to the testimony of two sons of plaintiff, after the stairs were ready for delivery, Stafford called at plaintiff\u2019s place of business to inspect the stairs, and upon one of the sons expressing doubt as to the financial responsibility of said Rydquist & Sundholm Company, Stafford said: \u201cYour money will be taken care of. I will hold out your money, and see that it is paid to you.\u201d Stafford denied that he ever told plaintiff or any of his representatives that he would personally guaranty plaintiff\u2019s account for the stairs or would \u2018 \u2018 hold out \u2019 \u2019 any money therefor. About July 24, 1913, after the stairs had been delivered at the building, one of plaintiff\u2019s sons called on Stafford and asked for a payment on account. According to the son\u2019s testimony, Stafford said that he should \u201cget an order from the Rydquist & Sundholm Company,\u201d and that the most he (Stafford) could pay at that time was $600. The witness procured such an order and the same was introduced in evidence. It is dated July 24, 1913, and is signed \u201cBydquist & Sundholm Co., W. A. Sundholm,\u201d and is addressed to \u201cStafford & Stamm.\u201d In the body of the order are the words: \u201cPlease pay to the order of Jos. Svenson the sum of $600 and charge to my account.\u201d Below the signature are the words: \u201cPaid $600. J. A. Svenson, by Brick Svenson.\u201d After the work of setting up the stairs in the building had been fully completed, one of the sons of plaintiff again called on Stafford and asked for the balance due, $550, on plaintiff\u2019s work, and Stafford said that the work was satisfactory and suggested that said son call upon Stamm relative to Stamm and Stafford and their respective wives giving to plaintiff a note for said balance. Said son thereupon called upon Stamm and presented him with an order for $550 from Bydquist & Sundholm Company, and asked for payment. Some conversation was had regarding Stamm and Stafford and their wives giving plaintiff a note for said balance, and Stamm finally said that he would later advise plaintiff as to what they would do. No note was ever given plaintiff. Subsequently plaintiff served subcontractor\u2019s notices of a mechanic\u2019s lien, dated October 20, 1913, on Henry and May Stafford (whether served on the Stamms does not appear), claiming a lien on said premises and building for the material and labor for constructing said stairs, and that there was due plaintiff \u201con the 23rd day of August, 1913,\u201d the sum of $550 therefor. A certified copy of the records and proceedings in a certain garnishment suit in said Municipal Court, case No. 280,299, was introduced in evidence. It therein appeared that on April 20, 1914 (after the present suit was commenced), the Columbia Cabinet Company, an Illinois corporation, recovered a judgment in said court for $1,007 against \u201cNils A. Sundholm and Carl A. Bydquist, doing business as Rydquist-Sundholm Company\u201d; that a garnishee summons was issued for said Henry Stafford and George C. Stamm, and others; that on May 14, 1914, said Stafford and Stamm, as garnishees, filed a joint answer, verified by affidavit, in which they admitted having in their possession money, to the amount of $356.30, due and owing said Rydquist-Sundholm Company, for balance under a certain contract for the erection of a certain building, which amount was subject to the order of the court, and alleged that said money was claimed by \u201cJ. A. Svenson,\u201d and others (naming them), and asked that said adverse claimants appear, etc.; that subsequently plaintiff entered his appearance in said garnishment suit; and that on May 27, 1914 (before the judgment in the present suit was entered), the court adjudged that \u201cjudgment be entered on the finding as to the claim of the Columbia Cabinet Company, to the fund in the hands of the garnishees, and that the right thereto is in the Columbia Cabinet Company.\u201d\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Mechanics\u2019 liens, \u00a7 196\u2014when evidence insufficient to establish joint liability. In an action to enforce a mechanic's lien for constructing stairs in a building, where the judgment was against three defendants jointly, evidence examined and held insufficient to prove a joint liability.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014when statement of claim does not warrant joint judgment. In an action by a subcontractor to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien, where plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim does not show that he is seeking a judgment against the owners of the building and the original contractor jointly, such a judgment is erroneous under section 28 of the Mechanics\u2019 Liens Act (J. & A. \u00b6 7166), providing that all suits and actions by subcontractors shall be brought against both contractor and owner jointly and no decree or judgment shall be entered until both are brought before the court by process.\nAdams, Crews, Bobb & Wescott, for plaintiff in error.\nM. M. Jacobs, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and. Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0554-01",
  "first_page_order": 580,
  "last_page_order": 585
}