Court Opinion

ID: 6737839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:19:56.181203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:51.618938
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
BmuzEi/L, J.
In their petition for rehearing counsel for appellants-urge that the complaint is insufficient in failing to allege that Kasper Goetz was the owner of the premises at the time the materials were supplied, and that there is no competent evidence in the record establishing that he was such owner. The complaint alleges that the lien was filed on the 17th of November, 1911,' and that Kasper Goetz was at that time the owner and in possession of the premises.
It is true that the contract under which the materials were supplied was made more than a year previous to this, and that the record is lacking in satisfactory and direct evidence of ownership, either at the *45time the materials were furnished or at the time the lien was filed. The complaint should now be liberally construed and the judgment affirmed if Goetz had an interest to which the lien could attach. See Chicago Lumber Co. v. Fretz, 51 Kan. 134, 32 Pac. 908; Johnson v. Soliday, 19 N. D. 463, 126 N. W. 99. But in our opinion there should be more direct evidence of the ownership than that contained in the record. Our conclusion is that the judgment of the district court should be. and is affirmed, conditioned upon the plaintiff’s supplying satisfactory proof of ownership of the premises. The ends of justice do not require a new trial, except upon this issue. Neither the appellants nor the respondents shall be entitled to recover their costs or disbursements on this appeal.
The petition for rehearing is denied.