Case Name: AUER v. CROFT
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-03-31
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 768
Docket Number: No. 64
Parties: AUER v. CROFT
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 768–768

Head Matter:
No. 789
AUER v. CROFT
Ohio Appeals, 3rd District, Union County
No. 64.
Decided March 31, 1923
235. LIENS.
Possession of machinery repaired prerequisite to lien by repairer.
Attorneys — John L. Loughrey, for Auer; Milo L Myers, for Croft.

Opinion:
HUGHES, J.
Epitomized Opinion
This was an action to enforce a lien for labor and material. Thg evidence disclosed that the Marys-ville Foundry and Machine Company went upon the premises of the defendant and repaired certain machinery. This company did not retain possession oi the machinery. As the defendant did not pay for the repairs on the same, the present action was brought, and denying the plaintiff's right to a line the Court of Appeals held:
1. The repairs were made upon the credit of the person who employed the plaintiff, and not upon any-asserted right to a lien upon the property, as possession is essential to the creation of a lien of this character.