Citations
- 68 Tex. 521
Full opinion text
Stayton, Associate Justice.
This action was brought by the appellants to recover from E. R. Logan the value of material alleged to have been furnished by him to Logan, which was used in erecting business houses on lots numbers one and two in. block six, in the town of Henrietta. They seek .also to enforce the lien given to persons who furnish material used in kh construction of buildings. The appellees Stine and Eustis were made defendants, as the petition alleges, because they jelaim or assert some right in the property acquired through Logan since the material was furnished.
The two lots are described in the petition as follows: “Beginmingat the northwest corner of said block No. (6) six, thence south 44 feet, thence east 110 feet, thence north 44 feet, thence west 110 feet to the place of beginning.” The petition further alleges 'that the material was furnished on a verbal contract, and that within the time required by law a copy of the bill showing the particulars of the material furnished was delivered to Logan, •-and another filed in the office of the clerk of the county court, which was by him recorded in a book kept for the purpose of recording mechanic’s liens, and it further alleges that the copy of the bill of particulars so recorded contained a description of the lands on which the houses were erected.
The bill of particulars so recorded was made an exhibit to the petition, and it showed that the lien was claimed on lots one and two and four in block six, of the original plat of the town of‘Henrietta; and the clerk’s certificate showed that it was recorded ' in the records of said county, in volume 1, at pages $62, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168, Bill of Sale Record.”
The answer alleged: “That the said lots numbers one and two, together with the houses erected thereon at the time said materials were contracted for and furnished, were owned by E„ R. Logan, and that the lots numbers three and four in said block number six, together with said houses erected on said lot number three, in said block number six, but stated in said claim of lien to have been erected on said lot number four in said block number six, and that said lots three and four were owned by W. G-. Eustis at said time.” The answer further alleges that lots one and two are not adjoining lots three and four, and that the houses are two separate and distinct buildings.
The pleadings thus standing, the defendants filed demurrers general and special, at the same time their answer to the merits was filed. The substance of the demurrer was as follows:
1. That the petition was insufficient in law.
2. The petition alleged the material was used in the erection of buildings on lots one and two, block six, while exhibits