Advertisement Clipping from Cincinnati Commercial, Wed, Jan 20, 1875.

Clipped from US, Ohio, Cincinnati, Cincinnati Commercial, January 20, 1875

f THE COURTS.SUPERIOR COURT.Bnjldipf Contractu — Rights of Sub-Cou-tractor*. _Robert Sebnmdhorst vs. Gertrude Lucking. Judge O’Connor announced the opinion of the Court in Gen-•raJ Term. The proceeding was instituted to reverse a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in Special Terra, in January, 1871, Ferdinand Fromme note red into a contract with Gertrude Lucking totmiid a bouse for *5,195-41,000 to be paid when thbuilding commenced and *1,000 yearly thereafter J rorame being without means received during fhiffratyeer *2.900. and in April of that year informed the defendant he could not proceed under the contract for want of meaqs, and a number of sub-oon-traetors refusing to work nnder their contracts with him unless the defendant would pay them, she entered into a Dew contract with Fromme, whereby, in consideration of a deduction of ten per cent she agreed to ad-■vanor to him money sufficient to complete the building. In pursuance of this eofirrart she furnished money in advance of the original contract, paid money to the sub-contractors herself, and accepted orders from Fromme tn favor of them, which she paid. When the house wm completed she bad a final aectlemeat with Fromme, and took bis receipt in full, After the 5th of September the defendant psid no aponey to any person on account of the building, except what she had previously promised to pay subcontractors with consent of Fromme.It further appeared that Scbnaidhorst.the sub-contractor, theplaintiff in this action, entered into a contract with Fromme to do the brioit-work for *1.400, ail of which had been paid by the contractor exceDt$480.»rGertrude __ ^_________________________T-ieh Law. In August. 1871. Fromme gave to the plain tiffam order upon the defendant for the sum due to mm, which she refused to acceptThis Court was of opinion that the Court below was warranted in its findings of fact, and that nnder the Mechanics4 Lien Law the judgment followed as a ate cess a ry consequence. The plaintiff, at most, •could only claim to be abrogated to the extent of his •demand to the rights of the contractor against the •owner, and by the finding of the Court nothing was due to the contractor when the lieu notice was•ervnd.Judgment affirmed.jr. B. Von Seggern, for plaintiff in error; J. F. □Baldwin, contra.