
    Charles Wieska v. Albert Imroth and Auguste Imroth.
    
      Mechanics' Liens—Building Contracts—Statement—Sec, 35, Chap. 82, B. S.
    
    For the lack of a statement in compliance with See. 35, Chap. 82, B. S., this court bolds that the plaintiff in the case presented can not recover for work performed and material furnished.
    [Opinion filed December 7, 1891.]
    Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Scales, Judge, presiding.
    Appellant, in the spring of 1889, contracted to and did work and furnished materials on the premises of appellees in Chicago; on the 13th of June, of that year, appellant furnished appellee with a sworn statement of the names of certain material men and laborers, but failed to state the rate of wages of any of the workmen, or how much had been paid to either of them, or the terms of contract with any of them.
    The statement as to the workmen was as follows:
    “The following named persons were in my employ on said job, viz.: Schultz, Bernard Wieska,- Bobert Wieska, Otto Pauly, Krampc and Charlie, which all amounts to $125, and which is paid in full.” This was the only statement furnished.
    Mr. Arthur Sciiroeder¡ for appellant.
    Messrs. Louis Ejstler & Sou, for appellees.
   Waterman, P. J.

The statement .was not a compliance with the statute. It provides that the original contractor shall, whenever any payment of money shall become due from the owner, or whenever he desires to draw any money from the owner * * * on such contract, make out and give to the owner * * * a statement under oath, of the number, name of every subcontractor, mechanic or workmanin his employ or person furnishing materials, giving their names and the rate of wages, or the terms of contract, and how m/uch, if anything, is, due or to becom,e due to them or any of them for work done or material furnished. * * * Until the statement provided for in this section is made in manner and form as herein provided, the contractor shall have no right of action.

The judgment of the County Court that for lack of a statement in compliance with the statute the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  