Case ID: ill-app_204/html/0023-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

August C. Jahnke, Defendant in Error, v. Stanley Biolos et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
    Gen. No. 6,316.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Mechanics’ liens, § 196
      
      —when evidence insufficient to show that owners knowingly permitted contract purchaser to contract 
      
      for repairs and improvements. Evidence held insufficient to show that the defendant owners of the building in possession of their codefendant under a contract of purchase of the premises knowingly permitted said codefendant to contract with the plaintiff for certain repairs and improvements on the building so as to authorize a lien on the premises for such repairs and improvements, in a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien claimed because thereof.
    
      Error to the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Charles H. Donnelly, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916.
    Reversed.
    Opinion filed February 10, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Suit by August C. Jahnke, complainant, against Stanley Biolos, William A. Birk and Birk Brothers Brewing Company, a corporation, defendants, to enforce a mechanic’s lien claim. From a decree finding the complainant entitled to a lien for $452 and ordering a sale of the premises involved to satisfy same, defendants bring error.
    The complainant, a contractor and builder, furnished the defendant Stanley Biolos on his verbal contract certain repairs and improvements on a building in the possession of Biolos under a contract of purchase of the premises from the other defendants, who were the owners thereof.
    E. V. Orvis, for plaintiffs in error; Butz, Von Ammon & Johnston, of counsel.
    A. V. Smith, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.