American Bridge Company of New York v. Honstain
| Decision Date | 24 January 1913 |
| Docket Number | 17,704 - (39) |
| Parties | AMERICAN BRIDGE COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. G. T. HONSTAIN and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
In an action in the district court for Hennepin county to foreclose mechanic's liens, the Crown Iron Works Company sought to recover personal judgment against defendant Honstain for the sum of $811 and to foreclose a mechanic's lien therefor. The case was tried before Holt, J., who made findings of fact and ordered judgment in favor of the iron works company against defendant Honstain for the amount demanded, that the judgment be decreed a lien upon the premises in question, and that they be sold to satisfy the judgment and the costs of sale. The motion of the Northwestern Consolidated Milling Company for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law was denied. From an order denying a motion of the last named company for a new trial of the lien claim of the iron works company, the milling company appealed. Affirmed.
Mechanic's lien -- different items in one lien statement.
In a claim for a mechanic's lien, which includes different items of material furnished to the contractor at different times during the progress of the work, at an agreed price for each item, if all the materials are furnished for the same job, as the construction of a building, they may be all included in one lien; and the lien statement is filed in time, if within 90 days after the last item is furnished.
Finding sustained by evidence.
The finding of the trial court that all the materials furnished by respondent to the contractor in this case, including the last item, were furnished to the contractor and used in the construction of the building, to enable the contractor to comply with and fulfil the terms of his contract, is sustained by the evidence.
James D. Shearer, for appellant.
A. B Darelius, for respondents.
This is a mechanic's lien action. The trial court found that the Crown Iron Works Company was entitled to a lien in the sum of $811 upon the real estate involved. The owner, defendant Northwestern Consolidated Milling Company, appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
The facts are as follows:
Prior to June 10, 1908, defendant Honstain entered into a contract with the milling company, by the terms of which, in consideration of the payment of the contract price, he agreed to construct for the company, upon the real estate involved a grain elevator, complete for the storing and handling of grain, including automatic receiving separators, wheat pits, track sheds, framing for shovel machinery, garner bins, and mechanical contrivances for the storing and handling of grain. Honstain commenced work under the contract June 10, 1908, and completed the elevator on March 26, 1909. He purchased of respondent structural iron and steel of the value of $2,811, which was used in the construction of the elevator. The first item was furnished October 14, 1908, and consisted of material used for the framing of track shed. Honstain agreed to pay for this item $2,150. The second item was for material used for shovel machinery supports, which was furnished December 4, 1908, at the agreed price of $572. The third and last item of the material furnished by respondent to Honstain, and used in the construction of the elevator, was for material of the value of $89, furnished March 26, 1909, and used to remedy a defect in the garners. At this time the elevator had been turned over to the milling company.
The lien statement of respondent was filed June 21, 1909. The main contention of appellant is that the materials were furnished by respondent under three "separate, individual, and unrelated" contracts, and that, the lien statement not having been filed within 90 days after the first and second items were furnished, the right to a lien for the materials furnished under the first two contracts has been lost.
There is no fair question as to the good faith of respondent, and therefore no reason for a suspicion that the last item was furnished solely to keep alive or restore the right to a lien for the materials previously furnished. There is some ground for appellant's contention in the decided cases, but those in this state upon which it relies are distinguishable.
In Fitzpatrick v. Ernst, 102 Minn. 195, 113 N.W. 4, the lien claimant had agreed with the owner of a building to make all the alterations and repairs which the owner would need in the future at the regular price of work and material, with 10 per cent. added. From time to time the owner would order repairs and the work was done as ordered. It was held that the trial court was justified in finding that the work consisted of a number of independent jobs, and that plaintiff was entitled to a lien for only those portions of the work done within 90 days prior to the filing of the lien statement. There was no "one job" in the case cited, and the materialman dealt directly with the owner. That the situation would be different when the materials are furnished for one general purpose, as for the erection of a building, is recognized in the opinion.
In Northwestern Lumber & W. Co. v Parker, 118 Minn. 211, 136 N.W. 855, the appeal was from an order granting a new trial after a decision in favor of the lien claimant. It was said by this court that there was a fair doubt whether the lien statement included work done and material furnished under one...
To continue reading
Request your trial