Show I I I I MECHANICS LEN LIEN CASE GASE IS DECIDED BY SUPREME COURT Passes Upon an Acton From the See Sec Secand and orid District I I II Chief of time Iho supreme court In an opInIon handed down I Thur Thursday In timo case o of lie Voer Lumber cOlpany company and Imi orsen Bros against t Mary ar Flinders Vance anti and Irving Peterson a con contractor I tractor upon whom service was not Dade made dl discusses cusses at length time tho dIffer enl cut effects of a mechanics len lien as agaInst against homestead exemption rights Only a a smal small amount Is In iii In the appeal but iUt this Is time tho second time the he case caso has been before the tho supreme The Tho appeal of oC the tho lum el company and Dros Bros from Judge J A li visIon in the second distrIct court giving gling hem a judgment In instead stead of H a mechanics lien Hen against Mrs Vances property the court says sara is no iio wel well taken hut bul the case Is IB sent hack for more evidence us as to el ci Mrs is Vance Is entitled to home home homestead stead exemption Justice as associates concurrIng The lumber company set up tip a me mc ilen and Gued for fOr for fUrnished fOl Mis rs Vances house anti and Halvorson Bros subcontractors subcontractors tractors came In wIth a a demand for Mrs Vances demurrer to the tho general effect lint thal she had two and was the head of a house household household hold and this timis wa was her hem homestead gic givIng lug Ing her a right to was overruled and judgment entered as do mandel Mrs Vance appealed and time the was sustained The second trial resulted In a dismissal of the demand domand for a mechanics lien Hen on the property the setting lP up that I adjoInIng property owned by Mrs Vance whIch she subsequently sold oid to her hor son was her homestead and that she was a not entitled to lo home homestead stead exemption up upon n time the other ro crt erty The Tho supreme court says sas the r records I do not show whether the tho adjoInIng I property WM was rs Vances homestead or not neither Is there anything to show whether time the combined value of time tho two properties exceeded time 2350 2250 exemption Mr Mrs Vance claimed If it does not the plaintiffs canot cannot collect collect incidentally time tho cour court tal takes es a slap at the way the case has been hanS han dIed by bv the tho lower court Time The Issues in somo some respects were losely loosely present cr et and the evidence hearing bearing upon them Is meager anti and indefinite and t the findings by the court are arc incomplete and insufficiently responsive to the issues and In some particulars ar arnot are not responsIve to tue tho evidence the higher court says sars To obviate another appeal time the su sit supreme preme cour court advIses time the lower court to ascertain the tho intent and of a stipulation found In the ilie record although respect thereto thereLo no assignment Is made wIth |