{ "id": 5119174, "name": "Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Kate M. Vandermark et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Vandermark", "decision_date": "1893-05-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "231", "last_page": "233", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ill. App. 231" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "12 Ill. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2622588 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/66/0125-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5058073 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/43/0410-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 288, "char_count": 4041, "ocr_confidence": 0.471, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15547682509675276 }, "sha256": "ddddd212e18dd6832f6026416c6547d94d75659d4f4dae130b7e079694e60d46", "simhash": "1:b0cc4423967c7348", "word_count": 704 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Kate M. Vandermark et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion of the Court,\nGary, P. J.\nThe case shown by the proofs is, that November 6, 1891, Timothy O\u2019Shea made a contract with John L. Vandermark, husband of Kate, by which O\u2019Shea undertook to erect a block of eight houses, all under one roof, except so far as separated by fire walls.\nAt that time the title to the ground was in one Wright, with whom the Vandermarks were negotiating for an exchange for property of the wife. Subsequently Wright conveyed to her. Between the Vandermarks themselves it had been arranged that he should attend to the business of making the exchange, and erecting the houses for her. Before work was begun, O\u2019Shea and Charles F. Boche agreed between themselves, that as to the mason work, they would be equal partners, and they went on with the work on that basis.\nThe appellant sold to them the brick, for the price of which the appellant filed in this case a petition for a lien upon the premises, under Ch. 82, B. S., having duly served upon Kate the notice required by section 30 of that chapter.\nThere are many other facts in the history of the case, which we regard as not necessary to recite, as the petition was denied solely on the ground that by the arrangement between O\u2019Shea and Boche, they had, as a firm, become sub-contractors under O\u2019Shea, individually, and therefore the appellant in selling brick to them was not a sub-contractor under O\u2019Shea, within section 29 of chapter 82, but a sub-sub-contractor, who can; not have a lien. Berkowsky v. Sable, 43 Ill. App. 410.\nBut O\u2019Shea and Boche were in no sense sub-contractors.\nThe arrangement between them Avas merely a method of compensation by O\u2019Shea to Boche for his aid in the mason work, as a percentage of the profits on that part of the job. That Boche was responsible AArith O\u2019Shea to the appellant for the brick, did not impair the effect of the fact that the appellant, to enable O\u2019Shea to perform his contract with the OAvner, supplied him Avith brick for which he Avas bound to pay.\nIn our opinion, there is nothing in the other multitudinous objections made by the several appellees to the claim of the appellant, all of which Avere rightly overruled by the Circuit Court.\nThe decree of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded, Avith directions to that court to enter a decree for the appellant for the sum of $2,343, being the price of 426,000 brick, at $5.50 per thousand.", "type": "majority", "author": "Gary, P. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "IJllman Strong, attorney for appellant,", "Appellees\u2019 Brief, Levi Sprague, Attorney,", "Weiglby,Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellees Schaar, Koch & Co." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Kate M. Vandermark et al.\n1. Mechanics\u2019 Lien\u2014Subcontractor of a Subcontractor.\u2014O\u2019Shea made a contract with Vandermark to erect a block of brick houses. The title of the premises was in Vandermark\u2019s wife. Before the work was begun O\u2019Shea and one Roche agreed that as between themselves, as to the mason work, they would be equal partners. The Knickerbocker Ice Company sold them the bricks and not having been paid, filed its petition for a hen on the premises, having served upon Vandermark\u2019s wife the notice required by section 30, chapter 83 R. S., entitled \u201c Liens.\u201d It was held that O\u2019Shea and Roche were themselves in no sense sub-contractors so that the Knickerbocker Company would be deprived of its liens by reason of its being a sub-contractor of a sub-contractor.\nMemorandum.\u2014Suit for a hen. In the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge, presiding, Petition for a mechanics\u2019 hen; answer; trial and petition dismissed for want of equity; petitioners appeal. Heard in this court at the March term, 1893,\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed May 24, 1893,\nIJllman Strong, attorney for appellant,\nAppellees\u2019 Brief, Levi Sprague, Attorney,\nThe act which gives a sub-contractor, performing labor or furnishing materials for the erection of a building, a lien thereon, for the value of such labor, will not be extended by construction, so as to give its benefits to a sub-contractor of a sub-contractor. Ahern et al. v. Evans, 66 Ill. 125; The Smith Bridge Co. v. The Louisville, N. A. & St. L. Air Line R. R. Co., 12 Ill. 506.\nWeiglby,Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellees Schaar, Koch & Co." }, "file_name": "0231-01", "first_page_order": 227, "last_page_order": 229 }