President of the Planters Bank v. Dodson
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question so much discussed in this cause, as to the character and the validity of the instrument executed by Four-
Apart from this recognition, it might be difficult to adjust the various equities of the parties. The lien created by the instrument, was upon the materials of a building ready to be erected, and afterwards erected upon the lot of Fourniquet. The' mechanics who put it up obtained liens which they afterwards enforced. These were paid off by the Bank, and for their amount, the Bank would have a right to stand in their place. Dodson had no lien on the lot, either express or implied.
It would not have been easy, therefore, to dissever the materials on which his lien subsisted, from those on which he had no claim. The severance would have been the destruction of both.
It would not be just to permit the expense of buildings erected by the Bank, after its purchase, to operate to the exclusion of the previous lien of the complainant. Nor, on the other hand, would it be just to permit the complainant holding a lien on part only of the materials, to get the price of the whole building and lot in payment of that lien. These are equities which have to be adjusted between the parties; and there is no very distinct scale by which to do it. The legal liability of the Bank, upon the contract with Fourniquet, is another consideration.
The complainant Dodson is entitled to the $4000, with interest from the time of the purchase by the Bank, to stand as a charge upon the premises. The value of the lot and the
The decree must be reversed, and the cause remanded for farther proceedings, in accordance with these directions;
Decree reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.