Thomasson v. Kirkpatrick

The opinion of the court was delivered by This was an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien on Lot 7,
Block 3, Eastborough Addition to the city of Parsons, in Labette
county, and for judgment against Ray N. Brinkman, William S. Bush
and Lyman L. Smith, partners doing business as the Acme
Construction Company. On November 3, 1950, F.C. Kirkpatrick and
his wife, owners of the real property above described, executed a
contract with the Acme Construction Company for the construction
of a residence upon the property for the sum of $20,000 in
accordance with certain plans and specifications, and the
construction company gave a bond to furnish all the material and
labor and to complete the building. Details of those instruments
are not important here. The owners of the property and the
contractors were made parties defendant, as were also a number of
individuals, firms, or corporations which had filed mechanics'
liens against the property. All of the lien claimants intervened
and sought foreclosure of their liens. In some instances the
language in these mechanics' liens did not conform fully with the
pertinent statute. When the attention of the court was called to
that fact each of the lien claimants so situated asked and
obtained leave of court to amend their mechanic lien statements.
Such leave was granted and the amendments were made. Thereafter
the Kirkpatricks and Ray N. Brinkman, the contractor, filed
answers raising many questions. These were put in issue by
appropriate pleadings. A trial was had by the court and judgment
was rendered for each of the lien claimants against the
contractors aggregating a little more than $16,000, and a lien
was allowed for each of them and the real property was ordered to
be sold to satisfy the liens. The owners of the real property and
the contractors have filed separate appeals, but they have joined
in one abstract and one brief for the appellants. The sole
question raised by the property owners that is relevant to this
appeal is a denial of the legal sufficiency of [174 Kan. 54]
the lien filed by the intervenors. Brinkman, who appeared at the
trial for the contractors, specifically states in the abstract
that he is not contesting the amount found due the several lien
claimants as a valid judgment against him personally. Neither is
he contesting the issue that he was a partner in the Acme
Construction Company, but that he is contesting the validity and
legal sufficiency of the liens as being valid and subsisting
liens against the real estate. Appellants specifically tell us
that they are not contesting the lien claim of the plaintiff,
L.W. Thomasson. Also, that they are not contesting the lien
claims of three of the defendants, who need not be specifically
identified.