P sued D based on the fact that P agreed to furnish certain materials and labor to build a septic system on D’s land. The trial court adopted the allegations of the complaint as its findings. D contends that P was always a subcontractor of another by the name of Keller. P claims that it was in privity to D, contrary to the conclusion accepted by the court. D claims to have paid Keller for the septic system. The trial court ordered P to pay D based on knowledge and receipt of the goods but found that P was, in fact, a subcontractor and not in privity with D.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.