{
  "id": 5119866,
  "name": "Munster v. Doyle et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Munster v. Doyle",
  "decision_date": "1893-11-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "672",
  "last_page": "674",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 672"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5317797
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 Ill. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5412770
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/128/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 Ill. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5437483
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/134/0350-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 Ill. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5436945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/134/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5030559
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/41/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5032984
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/41/0140-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 249,
    "char_count": 4299,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.822123157029673e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49747031583694645
    },
    "sha256": "13c26baab38c8c42c372eddbb5cd60f0ff9475ea1df3d54c59b6294a50436932",
    "simhash": "1:93566699ca28b8ac",
    "word_count": 757
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Munster v. Doyle et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion oe the Court,\nGary, J.\nIt is not pleasant to be driven to a reversal of the decree in this case, for reasons which do not touch the real justice of the case.\nThe defendants filed a petition against the plaintiff and her husband for a mechanic\u2019s lien, alleging that the Munsters owned a certain lot, and contracted with one Dick, for the erection of a building upon it. That he failed to complete his contract and that the defendants furnished material for the building to Dick, for which they had not been paid. Upon that petition they obtained a decree against the plaintiff alone. The case was once dismissed for want of prosecution, and never formally reinstated, but the parties proceeded in the litigation, taking no notice of the dismissal. The dismissal was thereby waived. Pratt v. Hunt, 41 Ill. App. 140. The proof shows that the husband was not owner nor party to the contract with Dick. This variance is fatal. Barrett v. Short, 41 Ill. App. 25; Purdy v. Hall, 134 Ill. 298; Cook v. Moline Plow Co., 134 Ill. 350; Prichard v. Littlejohn, 128 Ill. 123.\nThe contractor, Dick, was a defendant, but did not answer, and the decree takes no notice of him further than to recite that he appeared in person. The statute requires the decree to be \u201c against the owner and original contractor.\u201d Sec. 45, Ch. 82, Liens. The Supreme Court has held, apparently, that the omission to comply with that clause of the .statute is error. Culver v. Elwell, 73 Ill. 536.\nThe statute, Sec. 30, requires a sub-contractor to serve notice on the \u201c owner or his agent.\u201d As the statute distinguishes notice to the owner from notice to the agent, the petition should state the fact as it was. The petition here avers notice served upon Julia and Morris Munster. The decree is based upon the finding that it was served upon him only, and that he was her agent. The question of the truth of that finding will not now be considered, but if true, it does not support the petition.\nAs the case must go back for the defendants to amend their petition, if they desire to do so, we refrain from any discussion of the real merits. Should the case be again tried, it may present a different aspect.\nThe decree is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gary, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Pam & Kennedy, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "Young, Makeel & Bradley, attorneys for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Munster v. Doyle et al.\n1. Waiver\u2014Dismissal of Suit.\u2014Where a case is dismissed for want of prosecution and never formally reinstated, but the parties proceeded in the litigation, taking no notice of the dismissal, the dismissal is thereby waived.\n2. \"Variance\u2014Pleadings mid Proof.\u2014In a mechanics\u2019 lien proceeding, where the petition alleged that the defendants, who were husband and wife, were the owners of the premises and contracted with one Dick for the erection of a building upon it, and that he failed to complete his contract, etc., the proof showed that the husband was not owner nor a party to the contract with Dick. Held, the variance fatal.\n3. Mechanics\u2019 Lien\u2014Compliance with the Statute.\u2014A petition for a mechanics\u2019 lien alleged that the owners of a lot contracted with one Dick for the erection of a building upon it. The contractor Dick was made a defendant, but he did not answer. The decree took no notice of him further than to recite that he appeared in person. The statute requires the decree to be \u201cagainst the owner and original contractor.\u201d Sec. 45, Oh. 82, Liens. It was held, that the omission to comply with the statute was fatal to the-decree.\n4. Mechanics\u2019 Liens\u2014Variance Between Petition and Proof.\u2014Sec. 30 of Oh. 82, entitled \u201c Liens,\u201d requires a sub-contractor to serve notice on the \u201c owner or his agent.\u201d As the statute distinguishes notice to the owner from notice to the agent, the petition should state the fact as it was. Where the petition avers that notice was served upon two owners and the decree is based upon the finding that it was served upon one only, and that he was the owner\u2019s agent, it was held, not to support the petition.\nMemorandum.\u2014Mechanics\u2019 lien. Error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893. Reversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 27, 1893.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nMoses, Pam & Kennedy, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nYoung, Makeel & Bradley, attorneys for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0672-01",
  "first_page_order": 668,
  "last_page_order": 670
}