{
  "id": 5203232,
  "name": "John Ehdin v. Francis T. Murphy et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ehdin v. Murphy",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "555",
  "last_page": "557",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 555"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "145 Ill. 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5484866
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/145/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 Ill. 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5510055
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/163/0093-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 306,
    "char_count": 3726,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.036957840967046e-07,
      "percentile": 0.549682240161492
    },
    "sha256": "dd5d95bb64db5bc26049895678246cf9c1451f11c8e1a4c18aab54351cb4ad6a",
    "simhash": "1:47d07083de3d2118",
    "word_count": 653
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Ehdin v. Francis T. Murphy et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nWe will determine this case upon what we understand to be the law applicable to the claim of the plaintiff in error, without regard to auy objections that could be urged against the consideration of the cause, based upon either the insufficiency of the record, or former appeal.\nThe plaintiff in error sought to establish a mechanic\u2019s lien upon premises which had been the property of one Annella Eood.\nHow the nearly forty defendants in error have become interested in the cause need not be detailed.\nF. D. Eood was the husband of Annella. In 1892 this paper .was made:\n\u201c Chioaoo, III., Dec. 28.\nI agree to lay all common brick in the building to be erected by F. D. Eood at Forty-sixth street and Woodlawn avenue, according to the plans of F. J. Horton, for $5.50 per thousand, kiln counted, the walls to be continuous on the two sides of building. If air courts of wood are built in the sides, then I am to have $6 per thousand.\nI will lay all stone foundations for $7 per cord, quarry measure, and also set all cut stone in front at fifteen cents per foot, all openings to be counted out. If pressed brick are laid on side walls, for twenty feet more or less, at the front, I am to have $18 per M. for laying the same, and will furnish the color for the laying.\nPayments to be made every two weeks as work progresses. I furthermore agree to complete the mason work on said building within thirty working days.\nJohn Anderson & Ehdin.\nAccepted: F. D. Eood.\u201d\nThereafter, and before any work was begun, Anderson withdrew, and with the assent of the Roods, the plaintiff in error went on to perform the contract.\nThe verified statement filed by him with the clerk of the Circuit Court in attempted compliance with Sec. 4 of the act of 1874, as amended in 1897, was, so far as related to material and labor, as follows:\n\u201cAnnella Rood and F. D. Rood, to John Ehdin, successor to Anderson & Ehdin, Dr.\nTo building and construction brick work, setting stone front, sills, etc., as per contract dated December 28, 1892, which said work was performed from said December 28, 1892, up and to the 2d day of June, 1893, upon the premises belonging to said Annella Rood and F. D. Rood, at Wood-lawn avenue and Forty-sixth street, in the city of Chicago, more particularly described in claimant\u2019s affidavit herein.\n$5,770.85\nCredits .............................. 4,108.56\nBalance due.......................... $1,662.29.\u201d\nThis case is not, like Moore v. Parish, 163 Ill. 93, one in which a gross price is fixed for doing an entire job, but the plaintiff in error could recover only upon proof of items, and therefore his statement\u2014to comply with the section cited\u2014 must show those items\u2019. Campbell v. Jacobson, 145 Ill. 389.\nWe need not consider any other feature of the case. The plaintiff in error failed in a condition precedent to his lien, and the decree denying him a lien is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John E. Anderson, attorney for plaintiff in error.",
      "Williams, Linden, Dempsey & Gott, attorneys for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Ehdin v. Francis T. Murphy et al.\n1. Mechanics\u2019 Liens\u2014Are Purely Statutory.\u2014A mechanic\u2019s lien is purely statutory and can be maintained and enforced only upon a compliance with the conditions imposed by the statute creating it.\n2. Same\u2014Statement of Claim.\u2014Where the claim of the plaintiff is not for the gross price of an entire job, but for items of work done, the statement of claim, under section 4 of the mechanics\u2019 lien act of 1874, must show the date of the items.\nMechanic\u2019s Lien Proceedings.\u2014Error to Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Murray F. Tuley, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 15, 1897.\nJohn E. Anderson, attorney for plaintiff in error.\nWilliams, Linden, Dempsey & Gott, attorneys for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0555-01",
  "first_page_order": 553,
  "last_page_order": 555
}
