Case ID: ohio-cc_15/html/0718-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Swing, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court
    Jan. Term, 1898.)
    Before Cox. Smith and Swing, JJ.
    THE J. W. BLAIR BRICK COMPANY v. GUSTAV WALTZ et al.
    
      Entire mechanic's lien law of '94 invalid — Former law in force—
    The decision by the Supreme Court that the Mechanics’ Lien law of 1894 is unconstitutional so far as its provisions for sub-contrators’ liens are concerned, renders that law invalid as a whole, inclusive of the repealing clause therein, and the Mechanics’ Lien law thus attempted to be repealed remains in force. (Following the decision of the Circuit Court of the Sixth circuit in Whitney v. Gile, ante, p. 648.)
    Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
    While the mechanic’s hen law of Ohio, enacted in 1894, was in foroe, Waltz et al. took the contract for the erection of a building for George C. Schneider, and while the work was in progress the J. M. Blair Brick Company (who had obtained judgment for $471.15 against Waltz et al. for brick used in another building), filed a creditor’s bill against Waltz et al., based on said judgment, and subsequently made the owner, Schneider, a party defendant. A number of sub-contractors also became parties defendant.
    
      Foraher, Outealt, Granger & Prior, for Plaintiff.
    
      Ed. M. Spangenberg, John J. Gasser, Chas. J. Hunt and Wm. Hartley Pugh,lor defendants.
   Swing, J.

A decree should be entered in this case finding no equity in favor of the plaintiff, but finding the defendants entitled pro rata to the fund brought into court by Schneider; Mc-Cammon & Co. to share with the others,provided they complied with the law. This decision is made on the authority of the case of Whitney v. Gile et al., 15 O. C. C., 648, in 39 Weekly Law Bull., of June 6, 1898.