Barber v. Henry
Decision Date | 21 January 1953 |
Parties | BARBER v. HENRY et ux. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
E. B. Sahlstrom, of Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants.
Windsor Calkins, of Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Calkins & Calkins, of Eugene.
Before BRAND, C. J., and ROSSMAN, LUSK and TOOZE, JJ.
This is a suit brought by William G. East, trustee, as plaintiff, against Howard H. Henry et al., as defendants, to foreclose a lien for labor and materials furnished by Eugene Construction Company, Inc., in the construction of a building upon land owned by defendant Howard H. Henry in Lane county, Oregon.
Before trial plaintiff William G. East, having been appointed a judge of the circuit court, resigned as trustee, and John L. Barber, Jr., was appointed trustee in his place and stead and was substituted as party plaintiff.
The trial court entered a decree awarding judgment against defendant Howard H. Henry in the sum of $14,072.34, with interest, attorney's fees, and costs; decreeing the amount of the judgment to be a valid first lien against the premises owned by said defendant, that the lien be foreclosed, and that the lane be sold to satisfy the judgment as provided by law. Defendants Howard H. Henry and Dorothy H. Henry, his wife, appeal.
At the time of the construction of the building involved in this litigation, Eugene Construction Company, Inc., an Oregon corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'Construction Company', was a going concern, engaged in the contracting and building construction business in Lane county.
On June 4, 1948, the Construction Company entered into a written contract with defendant Howard H. Henry for the construction of a supermarket building on land owned by said defendant and located on the McKenzie river highway. The Construction Company agreed to erect the building, furnishing all labor and materials necessary, upon a cost plus 10 per cent basis.
Actual work of construction commenced on or about June 5, 1948, and was completed on or about August 15, 1948. On August 23, 1948, the Construction Company, as claimant, filed with the county clerk of Lane county its written notice of mechanic's lien, covering the tract of land owned by defendant Howard H. Henry, upon which the building was erected. The lien notice set forth a total charge for labor and materials in the sum of $17,572.34, with a credit of $3,500, leaving a balance of $14,072.34 due the claimant. Attached to and made a part of the lien notice was an itemized statement of the labor and materials furnished and the charges therefor. However, neither in the lien notice itself, nor in the attached itemized statement, is there any segregation of the items of labor and material as applied to the particular portions of the construction. All charges are in lump sums.
On November 4, 1948, the Construction Company assigned its lien to William G. East, trustee, for the benefit of certain named creditors, firms and individuals who had furnished to the Construction Company labor and materials for the construction of the building. In the spring of 1949 the Construction Company became an involuntary bankrupt.
On this appeal defendants set forth seven assignments of error. The view we take of the case renders unnecessary a discussion of any of these assignments except that numbered VI.
Defendants by this assignment allege that 'the court erred in allowing plaintiff to introduce into evidence over the objection of the appellants, plaintiff's exhibit C, being the mechanic's lien, in upholding the validity of the lien and in decreeing a personal judgment for the full amount of the lien', because, as defendants assert, the lien notice is defective in the following particulars:
The decisive question in this case is whether lienable and nonlienable items have been so lumped together in the lien notice that a segregation thereof cannot be made except by resort to evidence aliunde.
It has become hornbook law in this state that a lien cannot be upheld if the lien notice mingles in unsegregational form lienable and nonlienable items. Such a defect cannot be cured by oral evidence, by means of which the items for which a lien is given may be separated from those for which a lien is not given. Christman v. Salway, 103 Or. 666, 672, 205 P. 541.
In its findings and decree the trial court took notice of one nonlienable item appearing in the lien notice; viz., a charge of $20 for a water connection. This item was stricken.
However, the record discloses that in the lump sum charges for labor and material as shown in the lien notice there are included, without any segregation, charges for the construction of certain equipment inside the building. Defendants maintain that these articles of equipment were trade fixtures only; that they were in no sense attached to the realty, remained personal property, and, therefore, constituted nonlienable items. If those items are nonlienable, as contended by defendants, the lien is invalid.
Acting for the Construction Company, Edward R. Scott, its then president, superintended the erection of the building. As a witness for plaintiff, Scott testified on cross-examination:
'
* * *
* * *
'
'The Court: I suppose you are attempting to show that they are lienable or non-lienable items?
'Mr. Sahlstrom: All lumped together, your Honor.
'The Court: I wondered about that.
'Mr. Barber: We would like to bring that out on redirect.' (Italics ours.)
Upon his redirect examination, Scott further testified:
'Mr. Sahlstrom: I will object to this line of examination, all leading.
'The Court: Overruled.
(Italics ours.)
Scott was later recalled to the stand by plaintiff and on direct examination testified as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Elec. Co. v. E. Fred Sulzer & Co.
...in Unsegregational form lienable and nonlienable items. Such a defect cannot be cured by oral evidence. * * *' Barber v. Henry, 197 Or. 172, 252 P.2d 802, 803 (Sup.Ct.1962) (emphasis Between Getty and Barber the Oregon Supreme Court decided Christman v. Salway, 103 Or. 666, 205 P. 541 (1922......
-
Flaherty v. Bookhultz
...the following decisions: Nelson v. Hampton, Or., 294 P.2d 329; Barnes v. Eastern & Western Lumber Co., Or., 287 P.2d 929; Barber v. Henry, 197 Or. 172, 252 P.2d 802; Walker v. Mackey, 197 Or. 197, 251 P.2d 118, 253 P.2d 280; Powell v. Sheets, 196 Or. 682, 251 P.2d 108; Yellow Mfg. Acceptanc......
-
Anderson v. Chambliss
...lien has been clearly established, the law will be liberally interpreted toward accomplishing the purposes of its enactment. Barber v. Henry, Or., 252 P.2d 802, 806; Ward v. Town Tavern, 191 Or. 1, 14, 228 P.2d 216, 221; Timber Structures v. C. W. S. Grinding & Machine Works, 191 Or. 231, 2......
-
State By and Through State Highway Commission v. Superbilt Mfg. Co.
...this character ordinarily pass, as do all other fixtures, to the heir, grantee, or mortgagee of the land.' Also see Barber, Trustee v. Henry, 197 Or. 172, 181, 252 P.2d 802; Ward v. Town Tavern, 191 Or. 1, 228 P.2d 216; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Kimball, 163 Or. 31, 94 P.2d 1101; Matthi......