Case ID: ohio-cir-dec_8/html/0742-01.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

MECHANIC’S LIEN LAW.
    [Hamilton Circuit Court,
    January Term, 1898.]
    Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.
    Blair Brick Co. v. Gustav Waltz et al.
    «.mer Law still in Force.
    The act of April 13, 1894, 91 O. L, 135, to amend the mechanic’s lien law being unconstitutional and void, was not effective to repeal the law in force at the time of its passage.
    Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
    While the mechanic’s lien law of Ohio, enacted in 1894, was in force, WViA 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.
    
      Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior, for plaintiff.
    
      Ed. M. Spangenberg, John J. Gasser, Chas. J. Hunt and Wm. Hartley Pugh, for 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; McCammon & Co. to share with the others, provided they complied with the law. This decision is made othe authority of the- case of Whitney v. Gile et al., 8 Ohio Circ. Dec., 450.