Columbus Machine Manufacturing Co. v. Dorwin, 25 Ill. 169 (1860)

Nov. 1860 · Illinois Supreme Court
25 Ill. 169
The Columbus Machine Manufacturing Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Phares A. Dorwin et al., Defendants in Error; The Same v. Edward R. Ulrich et al., Defendants in Error

The Columbus Machine Manufacturing Company et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Phares A. Dorwin et al., Defendants in Error. The Same v. Edward R. Ulrich et al., Defendants in Error.

ERROR TO SANGAMON.

The petition to enforce a mechanics’ lien must state a time within which the contract was to be performed.

These were proceedings in the court below to enforce a mechanics’ lien. The plaintiffs in error are incumbrancers, and were made parties defendants below.

Lincoln & Herndon, for Plaintiffs in Error.

J. C. Conceding, for Defendants in Error.

Caton, C. J.

The petitions in both these cases present the same defect which we have so often decided to be fatal. They state no time within which the contracts were to be performed, as is required by the statute. This may be remedied by amendments, after the cases are remanded.

The decrees are reversed, and the suits remanded.

Decrees reversed.