Case Name: H. G. Davis et al., Appellees, v. John H. Willmore et al., Appellants
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1914-05-01
Citations: 186 Ill. App. 510
Docket Number: 
Parties: H. G. Davis et al., Appellees, v. John H. Willmore et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 186
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
H. G. Davis et al., Appellees, v. John H. Willmore et al., Appellants.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Franklin county; the Hon. William H. Green, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed May 1, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Bill by H. Gr. Davis, W. H. Lampley and Douglas Whittington against John H. Willmore and John Staphen for a mechanic’s lien in favor of plaintiffs for materials furnished by complainants to defendant Willmore, the original contractor, in the construction of a building for defendant Staphen, the owner. From a decree in favor of complainants for $450.79, which was declared a lien upon the premises, defendants appeal.
D. F. Moore, for appellants.
Thomas J. Layman and William B. Johnson, for appellees.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Mechanics’ liens, § 62 —when provision in original contract does not defeat subcontractor’s right to lien. A provision in a contract between the original contractor and owner that the contractor was “to provide at his own expense all the labor and material necessary and erect, build and finish in workmanlike manner a frame dwelling house,” etc., held not to have the effect of waiving any lien of the original contractor and also of defeating a subcontractor’s right to a lien. .
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number,

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice McBride
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Mechamos' liens, § 196 —when evidence does not show that materials were furnished on an open account. On bill to enforce a lien for materials furnished the original contractor, held that the evidence of complainant did not show that the materials were furnished to the contractor from year to year, upon a general open account, where the undisputed testimony of complainant was that he contracted to furnish the building materials for the particular house and that the materials were charged upon his books as an account against the contractor on that particular job.