Willis v. Mills Tooke Properties
Willis v. Mills Tooke Properties, 42 So. 2d 548 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949).
Cited by
- Baker Chemicals, Inc. v. Arkla Exploration Co. 545 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
- P. & A. WELL SERV. v. Blackie's Power Swivels 507 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
- Tex. Pipe & Supply Co. v. Coon Ridge Pipeline Co. 506 So. 2d 1296 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
- Knighton v. Beckham 154 So. 2d 232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
- Haase v. Brumfield 137 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
- Carroll Lumber & Supply Co. v. Bushong 125 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
- Graeme Spring & Brake Service, Inc. v. De Felice 98 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
- Tracy v. Hewitt 92 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
- Mid-State Tile Co. v. Chaudoir 77 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
- Franklin Life Ins. v. Hill 61 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
- Union Truck Terminal, Inc. v. Perlstein 52 So. 2d 315 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
- Universal CIT Credit Corp. v. Jones 47 So. 2d 359 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1950
Opinion text
I am in agreement with the above opinion on all points except the holding that the work done was not such as to be included under Act No. 68 of 1942. I agree with the Court's conclusion that plaintiff failed to establish a lien under the provisions of this Act for the reason that the record shows that the defendant at no time became legally liable to plaintiff for the services allegedly rendered. Since no money was ever due by defendant to plaintiff, it necessarily follows that no lien ever came into existence against defendant's lease, and, in my opinion, it is unnecessary for the Court to consider in this case whether or not the work performed by plaintiff, either on the leased premises itself or on the road adjacent thereto, was of such nature that payment for same could be enforced by the filing of a lien under Act No. 68 of 1942.