Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0237-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Hatchett", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fehr Construction Company et al., Appellees, v. Postl System of Health Building, on appeal of Chapin & Gore, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,920. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G-. Windes, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 21, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by Fehr Construction Company, a corporation, and others, complainants, against Postl System of Health Building and Chapin & Core, a corporation, the owners, defendants, for foreclosure of mechanics’’ liens. From.»a decree foreclosing liens in favor of certain intervening petitioners, the .defendant Chapin & Core appeals.
    See 189 Ill. App. 519, for the appeal from a former decree.
    William S. Newbttrger and Benjamin P. Ruekberg, for appellant.
    M. D. Dolan, for appellees; Freeman K. Blake, of counsel.
    Btjlkley, More & Tallmadge, for appellees Harty Bros. & Harty Company.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 1725
      
      —what is effect of decision on former appeal. Questions decided on a former appeal cannot be reopened.
    2. Mechanics’ liens, § 196*—when evidence shows knowledge By owners of rendering of work and furnishing of materials. A finding that defendant owners had knowledge of the work to be done and material furnished hy the respective lienors, held not against the manifest weight of the evidence, in a suit on mechanics’ liens.
    3. Mechanics’ liens, § 196*—when evidence supports finding as to lienahle and nonlienahle items. Evidence held to support finding as to lienable and nonlienahle items, in a suit on mechanics’ liens.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, .same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Hatchett

delivered the opinion of the court.