{ "id": 5080777, "name": "Bernhard Fried, Frank Compton, Eva Compton, Frank R. Chandler, Trustee, George W. Cass, Trustee, and the Holders of the Notes Secured by Trust Deeds to said Trustees, v. William Blanchard and Tim B. Blanchard, Partners, as T. B. Blanchard & Co.", "name_abbreviation": "Fried v. Blanchard", "decision_date": "1895-04-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "622", "last_page": "625", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "58 Ill. App. 622" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "58 Ill. App. 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5081282 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/58/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 N. E. Rep. 478", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 Ill. 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5484866 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/145/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 Ill. 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5437430 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/134/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 467", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5119393 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/50/0467-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 Ill. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2778620 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/85/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ill. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5803018 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/23/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 Ill. 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5386729 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/121/0571-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ill. App. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5096198 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/55/0362-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 456, "char_count": 6448, "ocr_confidence": 0.523, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0189641752386648e-07, "percentile": 0.5445257619266606 }, "sha256": "902dcd1ff0471f31e6c756754f11070edf8ec4594790adcc172d3e50f6fe626d", "simhash": "1:e6edbca6bc37cc68", "word_count": 1129 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Bernhard Fried, Frank Compton, Eva Compton, Frank R. Chandler, Trustee, George W. Cass, Trustee, and the Holders of the Notes Secured by Trust Deeds to said Trustees, v. William Blanchard and Tim B. Blanchard, Partners, as T. B. Blanchard & Co." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIn Goodman v. Fried, 55 Ill. App. 362, we held that Goodman had no lien for the plumbing of six separate cottages on different lots, under a contract in gross for the whole six.\nHere the Blanchards claim a lien upon the same property for the lumber furnished for the same houses under an order as follows:\n\u201c Chicago, Ill., Apr. 1, \u201992.\nMesses. T. B. Blanchard & Co.\nGentlemen: Please deliver to Mr. F. Remus such lumber as he may need to build my six houses on Greenleaf and Ashbury Aves., South Evanston, and charge the same to my account, and oblige,\nTours truly,\nBernhard Fried.\u201d\nWhen the order was given and the delivery of the lumber began, the ground was on the record shown as lot 1, block 7, Pitner\u2019s addition to Evanston. Before Goodman\u2019s contract, the lot had been subdivided and the plat recorded. Before plumbing-can go into a house it must be partly constructed, and therefore its location is fixed. The delivery of lumber may begin before the location is determined.\nHo separate account was kept of the lumber that went into each house, nor does the record show whether more went into some than into others. As the delivery of the lumber began April 11th, the acceptance of the order by Fried dated April 1st, must have been on one of, or between those days, and such acceptance constituted a contract under which a lien, if there be a lien, attached from the time that the contract was made. Paddock v. Stout, 121 Ill. 571. Though it is the performance that furnishes the \u201c rich oriental perfume,\u201d of which Breese, J., speaks in 23 Ill. 634.\nHow if, with lot 1, block 7 unsubdivided, the order had been for lumber to build \u201c my house \u201d instead of \u201c my six houses,\u201d then the lien would, have attached to the whole lot, and St. Louis Nat. Stock T\u2019ds v. O\u2019Reilly, 85 Ill. 546, seems to prove that more than one house does not affect the lien. Berndt v. Armknecht, 50 Ill. App. 467. The appellees were therefore entitled to a lien so far as the contract and performance of it were concerned. But the cases of McDonald v. Rosengarten, 134 Ill. 126, Campbell v. Jacobson, 145 Ill. 389, and McIntosh v. Schroeder, 39 N. E. Rep. 478, settle that the statement filed under Sec. 4 of the lien act, must show \u201c the times when the material was furnished,\u201d or there is no lien, even against the owner. Bradley v. Pearson Lumber Co., 58 Ill. App. 417.\nHere the statement filed, and the truth of which is sworn to, is as follows:\nLumber, Building Paper, Shingles, Lath, etc.\nEvanston, III., Sept. 1, 1892.\nMr. Bernhard Pried, Ashbury Ave. & Greenleaf S.\nBought of T. B. Blanchard & Co., Office and Yard, Railroad Track, north of Depot.\nFeet. Pieces. Size. Length. Description. Price. Api. 11, 1610 115 2x6 14 13\u00a3 21-74\nThen follow the other items of the account showing frequent deliveries of material until July 8.\nIn the margin at considerable intervals in the column headed April (the paper being ruled in columns), are written names of months, May, June and July\u2014and at more frequ\u00e9nt intervals, in the column under 11, figures, none higher than 31. Ho figures are to be found which can be supposed to indicate Anno Domini, except the 1892 at the head. This, as the master found, \u201c is clearly the date when the bill was made up, and can not throw any light on the year in which said materials were furnished.\u201d\nWe agree with the appellee\u2019s counsel that this objection \u201c is uniquely hypercritical.\u201d\nI speak now for myself, and not for the court, in saying that the principle on which the mechanic\u2019s lien law has been administered in this State has always been wrong; that instead of being construed strictly as in derogation of the common law, it should have been liberally construed, as a law to supply an omission in the common law; that some degree of trust and confidence must be reposed in each other by men in civilized life, and when one under contract with another attaches his property or labor to the property of that other, so that it can not be recalled, he should have a lien for the enhanced value, and therefore, that whoever brings himself within the first or twenty-ninth section of the act should not be cut off from a lien by neglect to comply with other sections, not in terms, or by necessary construction, imposing conditions precedent, unless it be a fair conclusion that such neglect was intentional, or in some way prejudicial to another. But the established law permits no such course, and as the statement gives to one having no other knowledge of the transaction than what could be derived from the statement itself, no information as to what year the lumber was furnished, we must hold it insufficient.\nThe decree is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition at the cost of appellees.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stillman & Martyn, attorneys for appellants.", "Norton, Burley & Howell, attorneys for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Bernhard Fried, Frank Compton, Eva Compton, Frank R. Chandler, Trustee, George W. Cass, Trustee, and the Holders of the Notes Secured by Trust Deeds to said Trustees, v. William Blanchard and Tim B. Blanchard, Partners, as T. B. Blanchard & Co.\n1. Mechanics\u2019 Liens\u2014Material for Separate Buildings in Gross.\u2014A materialman can have no lien for lumber furnished for erecting six separate buildings on different lots under a contract in gross for the whole, no account being kept of the lumber that went into any separate building.\n2. Same\u2014Separate Buildings on One Tract.\u2014A lien for material furnished for the erection of separate houses on the same tract of land may be enforced, and the fact that after the making of the contract for such material the tract of land is subdivided so as to locate each house upon a separate lot does not affect the lien.\n3. Same\u2014Statement Under Section 4.\u2014The statement required by Section 4, of Chapter 82, R. S., entitled \u201cLiens,\u2019\u2019 must specify the dates upon which the materials were furnished, without which there can be no hen.\n4. Same\u2014Statement\u2014Dates\u2014Presumption as to.\u2014Where a statement of materials furnished contains no date except the one date at the head of the statement the presumption is that such date is that of the making of the statement and not that of the furnishing of the materials.\nMechanics' Liens.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1895.\nStillman & Martyn, attorneys for appellants.\nNorton, Burley & Howell, attorneys for appellees." }, "file_name": "0622-01", "first_page_order": 618, "last_page_order": 621 }