{
  "id": 5630061,
  "name": "Charles Agles, Plaintiff in Error, v. Stolze Lumber Company et al., Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Agles v. Stolze Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1930-09-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "14",
  "last_page": "15",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 Ill. App. 14"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "245 Ill. App. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3371661
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/245/0330-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2476,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1635419671185463
    },
    "sha256": "bef18f41a9a9af0038130beea92bb7d2cd7536ae6971b4ebade96adcf0034af9",
    "simhash": "1:d5116f93ebb8b3a4",
    "word_count": 431
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:14.648113+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Agles, Plaintiff in Error, v. Stolze Lumber Company et al., Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fulton\ndelivered the opinion of the. court.\nDefendants in error, partners under the firm name of Stolze Lumber Company, filed a petition in the circuit court of Madison county to foreclose a mechanic\u2019s lien against certain property in Granite City, owned by the defendant, W. W. Haven. Charles Agles, plaintiff in error, was made a party defendant and answered the petition.\nHe was a subcontractor and at the instance and request of the original contractor furnished the labor and material for the brickwork on the flat or building\u2019 constructed on the premises.\nThe cause was referred to a master in chancery who heard the proofs and reported that there was due plaintiff in error the sum of $1,737, but that he was not entitled to a mechanic\u2019s lien, because he had not personally served the owner, W. W. Haven, with a notice of his claim for lien.\n\u25a0 A decree was entered by the court which found that plaintiff in error was not entitled to a mechanic\u2019s lien against the premises for the reason that he failed to personally serve upon the owner, W. W. Haven, within 60 days from the date on which he completed his work, a written notice Of his claim as required by section 24 of the Mechanic\u2019s Lien Law of 1903, Cahill\u2019s St. ch. 82, j[ 24. From that decree Charles Agles prosecutes this writ of error.\nWe do not find any merit in the contention of plaintiff in error that there was an implied contract in this case between himself and the owner which would void the requirements of section 24. Neither do we give any consideration to the statement that to deny plaintiff in error a lien in this case would be a violation of his constitutional'rights.\nThe requirements of section 24 providing for service of personal notice of the character therein described upon the owner, or his agent, or architect, or superintendent in charge of work within 60 days from the completion, of his work, are plain and must be complied with in order to give the subcontractor a mechanic\u2019s lien. Throgmorton v. Mosak, 245 Ill. App. 330.\nThe decree of the circuit court, denying a lien to the plaintiff in error, is correct, and is hereby affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fulton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Egbert Ferdinand Tunnell, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Warnock, Williamson & Burroughs, for defendant in error. Bosooe 0. Forth, for W. W. Haven and Buth E. Haven."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Agles, Plaintiff in Error, v. Stolze Lumber Company et al., Defendants in Error.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1930.\nOpinion filed September 22, 1930.\nEgbert Ferdinand Tunnell, for plaintiff in error.\nWarnock, Williamson & Burroughs, for defendant in error. Bosooe 0. Forth, for W. W. Haven and Buth E. Haven."
  },
  "file_name": "0014-01",
  "first_page_order": 42,
  "last_page_order": 43
}