The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1897-11-03
A QUEER DECISION
BY JUDGE CALDWELL IN THE
ELECTRIC LIGHT CASE.

The Brush Electric Co., as holders OF
mechanics lien brings an action for the
foreclosure of its lien and for the sale
of property and makes parties large
number Of other persons, and various
questions have arisen in this case; II
being tried upon appeal here | will
not undertake to state the evidence
given in the case, but simply state our
view ofthe facts.
The Warwick Electric Manufacturing
Co., is corporation formed IN TINS
state and its purpose was to erect a
manufacturing establishment at we'll
ington for the purpose of carrying on
its business. making electricity and
selling it for lighting houses, and
wherever it might find an opportunity
to use the electricity for lighting pur-
poses. 1000
This corporation was formed in 1896,
and while looking for n place on which
to build its plant it found six acres in
town it proposed to purchase TINS
six acres belonged to two young ladies
by the name of Mullin. Mary Mullin
and Della Mullin. Della Mullin was
not at home. Mary was at home and
the President of the Company, who
also held the other offices of General
Manager and Attorney, in company
with two other persons, approached
Mary in regard to buying this pro-
perUy. They bought from Mary the
entire property, although she was the
owner of but one half in common with
her sister; and she gave to the Elect
ric Mfg. Co., contract, signing it her
self and signing it as an agent for her
sister, Della. The contract provided
for payment in August, and further
provided if payment was not made as
stipulated the contract should be void
at the option of those who gave it, the
venders The time for payment came,
no payment was made. In the mean
time the company proceeded at once
to erect upon this piece of ground its
building for the purpose of carrying on
the business for which it was organ
lied.
No payment was made, and there
after the parties undertook to make a
new contract but at that time Mary
had become insane and was in the
asylum.
Della repudiated this contract, re-
fused to carry it out, and refused to
ratify what her sister had done when
approached for that purpose by the
Manufacturing Company.
The payments were not made as l
have stated, and an attempt was made
to enter into a new contract. An
agreement was secured for the pur-
chase of this land at $1,000.
The arrangement was made and day
set that the deeds would be delivered,
at least one of them, that of Delia's, and
Mary's deed was to be obtained from
the probate court, and that was to be
obtained as soon as possible. The
parties were ready to make the deed,
but the Electric Co. did not pay moth
ing was done. This was an oral con-
tract, never reduced to writing. No
possession was ever taken under it OF
the land.
In September, about the 22nd, the
company was put in the hands of re-
ceiver in a suit brought in Cuyahoga
county by an unsecured creditor OF
the company. The receiver went on
and not only cared for the property,
but undertook to run it, and in order
to run it he borrowed money to quite
an extent, over thousand dollars
and in December of the same year, '96,
after a receiver had been appointed
Norton T. Horr and G. W. Horr bought
this land from the two young ladies,
Mary and Della.
Mary's interest in the land was con-
veyed through guardian, and the
conveyance was sanctioned by the pro-
bate court.
Various mechanics liens had been
filed against the property for the i'm
provements which had been building
in the meantime. Now the Legal
questions involved in this case are:
First. What interest, if any, did the
Manufacturing Co. get by reason Of
the contract made to it2
Second. What interest, if any, did
Norton 7. Horr and his brother get in
this property.
Third. The nature and character OF
these liens; as to whether they are
liens or not, so far as they are con-
tested the order of priority; and the
receiver has an account here in which
he claims priority over the mechanics
liens, and the mechanic lien-holderS
claim that the account as presented
and allowed in the court in CuyahogS
county, cannot take priority to the me
chanics' liens. These questions are
contested
Now, it is admitted in the case thai
when Mary Mullen signed the contract
as agent of her sister, she was not hel
agent; she had no power and M
authority to sell Delia's interest in thu
land. But it is claimed that Della, a
soon as she found out what her siste
had attempted to do, so conducted
herself thereafter that the doctrine o
estoppel should now be applied to he
and she should be held to have cor
roborated and ratified the sale pre-
tended to have been made by he
sister. And the acts relied upon ar
that she did nothing so far as tn,
Warwick Co. or the the lien holder
we're concerned, to disaffirm that con
tract, for such a length Of time tina
she is estopped.
We hold in regard to this title tina
there Is no evidence, and about thi
we have no hesitAncy whatever-t,
show that Della 10 estopped. Wher
ever she was called upon TO speak, il
talking with anyone, she dissffirme'
this contract she talked with person
where she said nothing about It, for in
stance, Mr.. Warner.
But Mr.. Warner in his testimony, il
all his testimony, says she disagree
with him about It's being proper sal
for her; he says in one place that sh
seemed to consent to what he said, bu
in every other sentence Of his testi
mony the idea is conveyed that Deli
dissented from this sale. There is no