Case Name: THOMAS WATSON v. C. M. PADGETT AND ANOTHER (3 CASES); GUS SWARTZ v. SAME; T. P. SHELDON v. SAME. (9 CASES); FLOYD FLEX v. SAME; G. W. LIND, APPELLANT IN EACH CASE
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1919-11-28
Citations: 144 Minn. 462
Docket Number: Nos. 21,406, 21,407, 21,408, 21,414, 21,416, 21,417, 21,418, 21,419, 21,420, 21,421, 21,424, 21,425, 21,426; No. 21,427
Parties: THOMAS WATSON v. C. M. PADGETT AND ANOTHER (3 CASES). GUS SWARTZ v. SAME. T. P. SHELDON v. SAME. (9 CASES) FLOYD FLEX v. SAME. G. W. LIND, APPELLANT IN EACH CASE.
Judges: Brown, C. J., took no part in these cases.
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
THOMAS WATSON v. C. M. PADGETT AND ANOTHER (3 CASES). GUS SWARTZ v. SAME. T. P. SHELDON v. SAME. (9 CASES) FLOYD FLEX v. SAME. G. W. LIND, APPELLANT IN EACH CASE.
November 14, 1919.
Nos. 21,406, 21,407, 21,408, 21,414, 21,416, 21,417, 21,418, 21,419, 21,420, 21,421, 21,424, 21,425, 21,426.
November 28, 1919.
No. 21,427.
Case followed.
Action in the district court for Koochiching county to foreclose mechanic’s liens upon certain logs and timber products. The case was tried before McClenahan, J., who made findings, ordered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, declared the judgments to be specific liens upon the logs and timber, and ordered the property be sold to satisfy the Hens. From the judgments entered pursuhnt to the order for judgment, defendant G. W. Kind appealed.
Affirmed.
8. H. Eckman, for appellant.
J. H. Brown, for respondent.
Reported in 174 N. W. 829.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
These are cases referred to in Sheldon v. Padgett, supra, page 141, 174 N. W. 827. The same proceedings were had and substantially the same facts found, except that the names and amounts were different, and in the Sheldon case there were full formal assignments of the claims attached to the statement filed in the office of the surveyor general and the original indorsed time checks were attached to the statement filed in the clerk's office, and in the 'Swartz case plaintiff was the original holder of the time check and there was no assignment. We hold, following conclusions reached in that case, that the judgment herein appealed from should be sustained.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., took no part in these cases.