Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1984, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rochester's Suburban Lumber Company v. Slocumb (Minn. 1968)
- Barrett v. Hampe (Minn. 1952)
- Lake Street Sash & Door Co. v. D. H. Evans Co. (Minn. 1932)
- Enviro-Fab, Inc. v. Blandin Paper Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- New Prague Lumber & Readi-Mix Co. v. Bastyr (Minn. 1962)
- Kahle v. McClary (Minn. 1959)
- United States ex rel. Noland Co. v. Allied Contractors, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 1959)
- Spaeth v. Becktell (Or. 1935)
- Botsford Lumber Co. v. Schriver (S.D. 1925)
- Henry Simons Lumber Co. v. Schnobrich (Minn. 1924)
- Northland Pine Co. v. Newstrom (Minn. 1921)
- Carr-Cullen Co. v. Cooper (Minn. 1920)
- Villaume Box & Lumber Co. v. Condon (Minn. 1920)
- Hot Springs Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Wallace (N.M. 1933)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Action to enforce a mechanic’s lien. Judgment was entered for the defendant Grande against the defendant Dahlvick for $91.68, of which $58.87 was adjudged a lien upon specific property. Grande appeals. His claim is that all of the $91.68 should have been adjudged a lien.
The defendant Anderson was the owner of a lot and building in Virginia. He was making some changes. Dahlvick had the contract for putting in a new front for $350. This contract was completed as early as October 14, 1914, and Dahlvick was paid. Of the material furnished by Grande $32.81 worth was furnished in connection with this front. Later Dahlvick entered into a contract with Anderson for some work in the basement. This work apparently was not in contemplation at the time of the contract for the front. Of the material furnished by Grande $58.87 worth was furnished in connection with this contract. The lien claim of Grande was filed on January 26, 1915. This was within 90 days after the furnishing of the material for the basement, but not within 90 days after the furnishing of the material for the front. The court finds that the contracts for the front and for the basement were separate and distinct, and as a result that the lien claim filed by Grande was not effective as to the material furnished in connection with the front. The only question is whether the finding is sustained by the evidence. If the work being done is one continuous work constituting one job, though there are several agreements for the furnishing of different materials, each being a separate contract for some part of the general work, a lien claim filed within 90 days after the last item preserves a lien for all. Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403, 26 N. W. 225; American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329, 139 N. W. 619; North
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.