TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sontag v. Brennan

John B. Sontag v. Michael L. Brennan

Sontag v. Brennan, 75 Ill. 279 (1874)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 15, 1874
Judges
McAllister
Citations
75 Ill. 279
Syllabus
Mechanics’ lien —building destroyed by fire before completion. Where labor is performed and materials furnished under a contract to do the carpenter’s work, only, of a building, the risk of destruction by fire to be on the owner, and the building is destroyed by fire, so that the workman is prevented, without fault on his part, from completing his contract, a decree giving him a lien on the lot for the sum due him for work and material will not be disturbed.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John G-. Rogers, Judge, presiding. This was a petition for a mechanic’s lien, filed by Michael Brennan against John B. Sontag and Theodore Schintz. The opinion states the facts.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McAllister

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice McAllister delivered the opinion of the Court:

The lien sought to be enforced was for work and materials actually done and furnished, just before the occurrence of the great fire in Chicago, October 9, 1871, which destroyed the building. Appellee was not to construct the whole building, but the carpenter work only. The building was to be a four story brick building. By the very terms of the contract, as between these parties, the risk of destruction by fire was to be upon appellant. When the fire destroyed both what appellee had done and the walls of the structure, of course the work stopped, but not by appellee’s fault. The latter was to be paid for his work as it progressed, the rate of fifteen per cent being held back. At the time the work was suspended there was nearly a thousand dollars due him. This was afterward agreed upon between the parties. By the contract it was to be paid upon the architect’s certificate, but the non-production of such certificate is excused. As to a subsequent default on the part of appellee, the evidence was conflicting, his evidence tending to show that he was prevented by appellant from going on. The jury have settled that question, and we cannot interfere. We think the petition was sufficient, and that the merits of the case are clearly with the appellee, and the decree will be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1895: 11896: 11905: 118952026peak 1895 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shine's v. Heimburger60 Mo. App. 174 (1895)
  2. Halsey v. Waukesha Springs Sanitarium Co.104 N.W. 94 (Wis. 1905)
  3. Bratton v. Ralph42 N.E. 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 1896)

Most recent

  1. Halsey v. Waukesha Springs Sanitarium Co.104 N.W. 94 (Wis. 1905)
  2. Bratton v. Ralph42 N.E. 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 1896)
  3. Shine's v. Heimburger60 Mo. App. 174 (1895)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list