Case Name: CITIZENS SAVINGS BANK CO v. HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CO.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-03-27
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 329
Docket Number: No. 1152
Parties: CITIZENS SAVINGS BANK CO v. HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 329–329

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 "