Steele v. Vernes
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 1954, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Minnesota Home Rebuilding & Repair Co. v. Kraulik (Minn. 1954)
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
Actions, consolidated below, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against defendant A. C. Vines. The two plaintiffs are carpenters and performed services in the building of defendant’s house.
1. The action of the trial court in consolidating these cases is questioned. Although started separately and simultaneously, we have no doubt that they were commenced in good faith and were properly consolidated. Mason St. 1927, § 8501; Miller v. Condit, 52 Minn. 455, 55 N. W. 47.
2. Plaintiffs’ claim was for labor furnished—a single item— and no bill of particulars was necessary. Menzel v. Tubbs, 51 Minn. 364, 53 N. W. 653, 1017, 17 L. R. A. 815; Jandrich v. Svabek, 170 Minn. 24, 211 N. W. 957.
3. Argument is made that the lien statement was not filed within 90 days after the furnishing of the last item (§ 8497) and that the action to foreclose was not commenced within one year thereafter (§ 8501). However, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court on that and all other points.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.