Bernard v. Hassan

• Decision Date: 10 October 1911
• Citation: 118 P. 201,60 Or. 62
• Parties: BERNARD v. HASSAN et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

118 P. 201

60 Or. 62

BERNARD v. HASSAN et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

October 10, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Wm. Galloway, Judge.

Suit by L. Bernard against Sarah A. Hassan and William R. Allin, to foreclose a mechanic's lien.From a decree for plaintiffdefendants appeal.Reversed, and suit dismissed.

M.E. Pogue (W.M. Kaiser, on the brief), for appellants.

J.G Heltzel and John Bayne, for respondent.

McBRIDE J.

Defendant Allin was the owner of a house and lot in Salem, Or., which were occupied by defendant Mrs. Hassan.In the spring of 1908, Mrs. Hassan entered into a contract with plaintiff to make certain alterations and repairs on the dwelling house which consisted, substantially, in putting a second story and roof on a portion of the building; dividing it into four rooms with partitions; clothing, papering, and finishing them, and painting the woodwork one coat; covering the roof with P. & B. roofing; putting in doors and windows; building a porch on the second story, and erecting a stairway from the ground floor to the porch.The contract price of this work was $150.Mrs. Hassan was to furnish all the materials for the work, including doors, windows, and frames.

Plaintiff placed workmen upon the building and began the work; but Mrs Hassan subsequently changed her mind, and concluded to have six rooms, instead of four, and continued to suggest changes and deviations from the original plan, until finally it was agreed that plaintiff should go ahead and perform the work under the direction and superintendence of defendant, Mrs. Hassan, and, according to her wishes, purchase the necessary materials, and that she would pay for them.On June 11, 1908, plaintiff secured the work, under these conditions, and labored and furnished other labor and materials to the amount claimed in the complaint.The work seems to have progressed from time to time, with a continual series of changes of plans on the part of Mrs. Hassan, until about August 6, 1908, when plaintiff and his workmen left, and plaintiff did not return until a few days later, when he found that Mrs. Hassan had employed other workmen to complete the building.

We are of the opinion that the delay of plaintiff in completing the building was caused primarily by Mrs. Hassan's failure to provide and have ready the roofing, which she had undertaken to provide, for the continuance of the work; and that, while nearly every fact above stated is disputed by her, the...