Case ID: ohio-app_10/html/0442-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chittenden, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Toledo Pulp Plaster Co. v. Long et al.
    
      Court of appeals — Appellate jurisdiction — Petition for money and foreclosure of lien — Amount due only issue raised by answer.
    
    Where a petition sets forth an amount due for labor and material furnished for the construction of a house for the defendant, and a mechanic's lien to secure the same, and prays for a personal judgment and foreclosure of the lien, and the answer raises an issue only as to the amount due, the action is not appealable.
    (Decided December 11, 1917.)
    Appeal: Court of Appeals for Lucas county.
    
      Mr. Warren J. Duffey and Mr. George C. Bryce, for plaintiff.
    
      Mr. John Schlatter; Mr. John O. Zabel and Mr. Rupert Holland, for defendants.
   Chittenden, J.

Upon argument of this case it was said that the only question presented was whether an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is appealable under the constitution and laws in effect at this time. The record before this court is >such that this question does not arise for decision, as this cause is not appealable, even though it were to be conceded that an action only to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is an appealable action.

The petition of the plaintiff sets out an amount due upon an account for labor and-material furnished in the erection of a house for the defendants, John Wamsher, Jr., and Anna Wamsher, and a mechanic’s lien perfected to secure the account. The petition prays for personal judgment and a' foreclosure of the lien. The defendants, Wamsher, by answer make only an issue on the amount due. The same situation exists between these defendants and other cross-petitioners. In this state of the record the cause is not appealable. (F. P. Rusher Lumber Co. v. Troxel et al., 10 C. C., N. S., 83, affirmed 76 Ohio St., 626, without opinion.) The circuit court in this county reached a similar conclusion in Ashley v. The Conant Brothers’ Furniture Co. et al., 12 C. C., 537.

The appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Kinkade and Richards, JJ., concur.