Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mark VII, Inc. v. Barthol, 926 S.W.2d 128 (1996)

Citation
Mark VII, Inc. v. Barthol, 926 S.W.2d 128 (1996)
Parent Document
Mark VII, Inc. v. Barthol, 926 S.W.2d 128 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1996-05-28

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text

404 chars
Appellants cite us to a number of cases which they claim support their theory that a hen is not required, including Findlay v. McAllister, 113 U.S. 104, 5 S.Ct. 401, 28 L.Ed. 930 (1885); Thomas v. Shoots, 651 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Mo.App.1983); Haynes v. Hawkeye Sec. Ins. Co., 579 S.W.2d 693, 699-704 (Mo.App.1979); and United States ex rel. Goldman v. Meredith, 596 F.2d 1353, 1357 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,