Cited by

(Citations omitted) If the contracts are separate and distinct and unrelated, not in connection with a continuous work or job, a lien claim filed does not preserve a lien upon materials furnished prior to the 90 days Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57, 58

In Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57, 58 , , the court said: “* * * 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.

In Paine & Nixon v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57, 59 , , we held that: “If the contracts are separate and distinct and unrelated, not in *257 connection with a continuous work or job, a lien claim filed does not preserve a lien upon materials furnished prior to the 90 days.” In Villaume Box & Lbr.

2 E. g., Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Ernst, 102 Minn. 195 , ; Dayton v. Minneapolis Radiator & Iron Co. 63 Minn. 48 , ; 12 Dunnell, Dig.

2 In Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57, 58 , , we stated as a general rule: “* * * The only question is whether the finding is sustained by the evidence.

See Krahn v. J. L. Owens Co. 136 Minn. 53 , ; Id.

ted in the building in order to complete the job of the contractor); Minneapolis S. & D. Co. v. Hedden, 131 Minn. 31 , (the finding was that a drain board, though by mistake delivered to an adjacent building and lost, was in fact furnished for the construction of the building on which the lien was asserted and therefor licuable); Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57 , (the finding was that the last materials were furnished under a contract for an improvement not contemplated when

ows: “When the owner determines to add something to the building after its construction has been completed and it has been delivered and accepted, materials furnished to the contractor to make the addition and not to accomplish the general purpose of the original contract are considered to be furnished under a new and independent contract.” And in Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57 , , where the question was one of fact, the court said: “If the work being done is one continuous work

Krahn v. J. L. Owens Co. 136 Minn. 53 , .

Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57 , ; see also 27 Cyc.

Frankoviz v. Smith, 34 Minn. 403 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Ernst, 102 Minn. 195 , ; N. W. L. & W. Co. v. Parker, 118 Minn. 211 , ; Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57 , .

516; Northwestern L. & W. Co. v. Parker, 118 Minn. 211 , ; American Bridge Co. v. Honstain, 120 Minn. 329 , ; Paine & Nixon Co. v. Dahlvick, 136 Minn. 57 , , and Northland Pine Co. v. Melin, 142 Minn. 233 , .

Krahn v. J. L. Owens Co. 136 Minn. 53 , .