Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0329-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KUNKLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 292
    CITIZENS SAVINGS BANK CO v. HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CO.
    Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist., Franklin County
    No. 1152.
    Decided March 27, 1924
    755. MECHANICS’ LIEN — A mechanics’ lien can be taken for material furnished for repair and maintenance work.
    Attorneys — H. Huntington, Columbus, for Bank Co.; C. H. Duncan, Columbus, and Johnson & Miller, Urbana, for Highway Construction Co.
   KUNKLE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

This is a controversy between the Bank and Construction Co. over a fund in the hands of the Highway Commissioner. The bank claimed, by reason of an assignment, while the Construction Co. claimed a mechanics’ lien for materials furnished the contractor. The work in question consisted of repair and maintenance Work as distinguished from a contract job, and the work was awarded upon an order instead of upon a public letting and formal contract with bond. In affirming the judgment, allowing the claim of the Construction Co., the Court of Appeals held:

1. “We are of opinion that under the broad terms of 8324 GC., a mechanics’ lien can be taken for material furnished under contract such as the one in question ”