{
  "id": 5412018,
  "name": "H. L. Angerer and Robert Abeles, Jr., Appellees, v. Southern Traction Company of Illinois et al., Appellants; John D. Vogt, Appellee, v. Southern Traction Company of Illinois et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Angerer v. Southern Traction Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-11-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "25",
  "last_page": "28",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 25"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        823976
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/78/0116-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 404,
    "char_count": 7279,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.60167783687625e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28839017255446164
    },
    "sha256": "0102da18ea104b45fa71a565d562d0860566a4ceff6cf41b81dbfeba99ac3276",
    "simhash": "1:463a422f87a596d9",
    "word_count": 1230
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. L. Angerer and Robert Abeles, Jr., Appellees, v. Southern Traction Company of Illinois et al., Appellants. John D. Vogt, Appellee, v. Southern Traction Company of Illinois et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Assignments, \u00a7 31 \u2014when Men of railroad subcontractor is enforceable by his assignee. The lien of a subcontractor under the railroad lien statute is enforceable in equity by the assignee of such contractor suing in the name of the latter, distinguishing the case of Cairo & V. R. Co. v. Fackney, 78 Ill. 116.\n5. Limitation oe actions, \u00a7 64 \u2014what constitutes statement of new cause of action in amended bill claiming railway subcontract- or\u2019s lien. Where an amended bill claiming a subcontractor\u2019s lien under the railroad lien statute was filed more than three months after the lien had accrued, including therein extra materials not included in the original bill filed within said three months, held that the claimant would not be entitled to a lien for such extras for the reason that, as to them, said amended bill set forth a new cause of action.\n6. Interest, \u00a7 76 \u2014when not allowed. Unless interest is asked in a bill claiming a lien under the railroad lien statute, the court would not be authorized to decree interest to such claimant.\n7. Railroads, \u00a7 408 \u2014when .party is not in position to insist upon determination of priority of lien. Where a railroad company, against which and its general contractor, a railroad lien proceeding was instituted for the construction of its road, by a subcontractor, was shown to be in the hands of a receiver, and the general contractor in the bankruptcy court, and a bank, also made a defendant to the proceeding, appeared by its answer to hold certain bonds of said company as collateral security for a loan made by such bank to certain individuals, and appeared to be defendant in another suit in a federal court with reference to the same bonds and had been enjoined from turning them over to anybody, held that aside from the bankruptcy and receivership proceedings the bank was not in a position to insist on a decree giving it a prior lien on the property involved.\n8. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1666 \u2014when right to raise question as to nonjoinder of party defendant is waived. Where, in a subcontractor\u2019s proceeding under the railroad lien statute, an amended bill was filed after the expiration of three months from the accrual of the lien claimed, making a new defendant a party to such proceeding, who neither by plea in abatement, demurrer nor plea of the statute of limitations raised the question in the trial court of the right to maintain such proceedings by reason of such defendant not having been made a party thereto within the three months specified in said statute, held that such defendant waived the right to raise such question and could not for the first time present the same in the Appellate Court.\n9. Railroads\u2014when objection that defendant should have been made party to intervening petition in subcontractor\u2019s proceeding for lien is without merit. Where, in a subcontractor\u2019s proceeding under the railroad lien statute, another subcontractor intervened, claiming also in part as a judgment creditor, an objection on the part of a defendant in the original proceeding, who claimed a lien as a bondholder, that it should have been made a party to .the intervening petition, held to be without merit, since such petition amounted, in effect, to an answer and not to a cross-bill.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. W. Baxter, J. E. Hamlin and J. L. Flannigen, for appellant Southern Traction Company of Illinois.",
      "Joseph W. Moses and John C. Slade, for appellant Union Trust & Savings Bank of East St. Louis; Joseph W. Moses and Henry Jackson Darby, of counsel.",
      "George B. Logan and Kramer, Kramer & Campbell, for appellees H. L. Angerer and Bobert Abeles, Jr.",
      "Turner & Holder, for appellee John D. Vogt."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. L. Angerer and Robert Abeles, Jr., Appellees, v. Southern Traction Company of Illinois et al., Appellants. John D. Vogt, Appellee, v. Southern Traction Company of Illinois et al., Appellants.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. Geobsb A. Crow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed November 13, 1916.\nRehearing denied and opinion modified and refiled January 13, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nRailroad lien proceeding \"by H. L. Angerer and Robert Abeles, Jr., complainants, against Southern Traction Company of Illinois, Lorimer & Gallagher Company and Union Trust & Savings Bank of East St. Louis, Illinois, as trustee, defendants, to establish a lien against said traction company for ties alleged to have been furnished said Lorimer & G-allagher Company as general contractors for the construction of a line of railroad for said traction company, and claiming as due the sum of $26,485.84, and intervening petitions by John D. Vogt for a lien for work and labor performed by him in the construction of the right of way, and a lien as judgment creditor. From a decree of the Circuit Court confirming findings of a master to whom the case was referred and rendering a decree in accordance therewith, granting H. L. Angerer, for the use of Robert Abeles, Jr., a lien against said traction company for $33,282.80, and the intervening petitioner, Vogt, a lien for $9,487.99 for work and labor and as judgment creditor for $4,252.83, defendants appeal.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Railroads, \u00a7 397 \u2014who are subcontractors entitled to lien. Where the owner of practically all of the stock and bonds of a railroad corporation, and who was acting as its general agent, entered into a contract with the company for the construction and equipment of its railroad whereby said company agreed to guarantee any contract entered into by him for the building of said road, and on the same day he entered into a contract with a construction company for the construction of a part of said road, and the railroad in an agreement with the latter guaranteed the faithful performance of the contract, which provided that the railroad company \u201cmakes itself directly liable\u201d to the construction company and that the latter should \u201cbear the relation and enjoy the rights of a contractor under and by virtue of the lien laws of the State of Illinois,\u201d held that the construction company was a contractor and not a subcontractor, and that those with whom such company contracted for materials were subcontractors and entitled as such to maintain a lien.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 488 \u2014when findings of master may not be objected to on appeal. A finding of fact made by a master in chancery, which is not objected to before the master or excepted to on the hearing before the court, cannot be objected to for the first time in the Appellate Court.\n3. Railroads, \u00a7 397 \u2014when subcontractor entitled to a lien. Under the provisions of section 7 of the Railroad Lien Statute (Hurd\u2019s Rev. St. ch. 82, sec. 13 (J. & A. If 7189), a subcontractor has a right to a lien upon giving the proper notice and taking the necessary steps notwithstanding the original contractor has not completed his contract, or has abandoned the same.\nS. W. Baxter, J. E. Hamlin and J. L. Flannigen, for appellant Southern Traction Company of Illinois.\nJoseph W. Moses and John C. Slade, for appellant Union Trust & Savings Bank of East St. Louis; Joseph W. Moses and Henry Jackson Darby, of counsel.\nGeorge B. Logan and Kramer, Kramer & Campbell, for appellees H. L. Angerer and Bobert Abeles, Jr.\nTurner & Holder, for appellee John D. Vogt.\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": "0025-01",
  "first_page_order": 49,
  "last_page_order": 52
}