219 P. 782 (Colo. 1923), 10474, Pacific Lumber Co. v. Watters

Docket Nº:10474.
Citation:219 P. 782, 74 Colo. 147
Opinion Judge:DENISON, J.
Party Name:PACIFIC LIMBER CO. v. WATTERS et al.
Attorney:[74 Colo. 148] Quaintance, King & Quaintance, of Denver, for plaintiff in error. Percy S. Morris, of Denver, for defendants in error.
Judge Panel:TELLER, C.J., and SHEAFOR, J., concur.
Case Date:October 01, 1923
Court:Supreme Court of Colorado

Page 782

219 P. 782 (Colo. 1923)

74 Colo. 147

PACIFIC LIMBER CO.

v.

WATTERS et al.

No. 10474.

Supreme Court of Colorado

October 1, 1923

Rehearing Denied Nov. 5, 1923.

Department 2.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Warren A. Haggott, Judge.

Suit by the Pacific Lumber Company, a corporation, against Thomas E. Waters and another, as Public Trustee of the City and County of Denver, to foreclose a mechanic's lien. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed, with directions.

Page 783

[74 Colo. 148] Quaintance, King & Quaintance, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Percy S. Morris, of Denver, for defendants in error.

DENISON, J.

The plaintiff in error brought suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the case is brought here for review.

The only question is the sufficiency of the description of the property in the notice of lien, which is a follows: 'Lots 33, 34, 35, and 36, block 10, Windsor addition.' There is no statement of the city, county, or state. The statute requires the notice to contain: '* * * Third, a description of the property to be charged with the lien sufficient to identify the same.' The complaint states that the property in question belonged to one Jennie Foster; that the improvements on which the lien was based were on lots 33, 34, 35, and 36, block 10, Windsor addition to the city and county of Denver, state of Colorado; that said Windsor addition was a duly platted addition or subdivision within the city and county of Denver; that the plat thereof was duly recorded in the said city and county; that said property was generally known as lots 33, 34, 35, and 36, Windsor addition; and that said addition was the only addition, subdivision, or platted portion of or on said city and county of Denver having the same or a similar name; and that at no time mentioned in the said complaint did said Jennie Foster own any other real estate in the city and county of Denver, state of Colorado, and was not engaged in the construction of any other building.

[74 Colo. 149] It follows from this with the certainty of mathematical demonstration that the description in the notice distinguishes the property in question from every other piece of property, and this constitutes indentification. Such a description would be...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP