Cain v. Rea

• Decision Date: 17 November 1932
• Citation: 159 Va. 446
• Parties: HERBERT L. CAIN v. M. L. REA, H. K. HAWTHORNE AND R. M. ROBINSON, TRUSTEES, ET ALS.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 446

159 Va. 446

HERBERT L. CAIN v. M. L. REA, H. K. HAWTHORNE AND R. M. ROBINSON, TRUSTEES, ET ALS.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

November 17, 1932.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Epes, Hudgins, Gregory and Browning, JJ.

1. MECHANICS' LIENS — Architect — Whether Architect Entitled to Lien under Section 6426 of the Code of 1930. — The language of section 6426 of the Code of 1930 is general in its terms and embraces all persons who perform "any labor" in the construction of a building. No distinction can be drawn between one who puts his labor into the plan for the erection of a building and actually supervises its erection, and one who in the role of a bricklayer or carpenter actually performs manual labor. That an architect is embraced in the protecting provisions of the statute is conclusive of his right to file a mechanic's lien on property not exempt by statute or public policy.

2. MECHANICS' LIENS — Architect — Whether Architect Entitled to Lien under Section 6426 of the Code of 1930 — Sections 45 and 46 of the Code of 1930. — In the instant case appellant, an architect, was seeking to enforce a mechanic's lien on a church building. Appellees contended that the legislature had seen fit to provide only two methods by which church property might be encumbered. While it is beyond controversy that the legislature by sections 45 and 46 of the Code of 1930 has laid down the rule that voluntary liens or encumbrances can be placed upon church property only by a strict compliance with sections 45 and 46 of the Code of 1930, yet these sections have no application to a lien which comes into being by operation of law.

3. MECHANICS' LIENS — Mechanic's Lien a Creature of Statute. — A mechanic's lien is a creature of statute and it attaches by operation of law when a contract has been entered into and work is done, or materials furnished, which adds to the value of the property.

4. MECHANICS' LIENS — Breach of Contract — Lien Not Dependent upon Breach. — The right to a mechanic's lien is not dependent upon a breach of the contract with the lienor. The contract may provide that payment is not to be made until after the expiration of sixty days from the date of the contract. That fact would not defeat the application of the statute, for the reason that section 6427 of the Code of 1930 accords to the laborer or materialman the right to file his lien within sixty days from the time the labor is performed or the materials are furnished. Of course, it follows that if payment is made to the lienor in accordance with the terms of the contract, the owner is not liable for any resulting costs.

5. MECHANICS' LIENS — Sections 45 and 46 of the Code of 1930 — Application of Mechanic's Lien. — Sections 45 and 46 of the Code of 1930 provide a convenient method for the sale or mortgaging of church property. They are barriers over which neither trustees nor individual members can step in order to destory the corpus. They do not prohibit a church, in a congregational meeting, duly called in conformity with the rules of the church, from entering into a contract with a laborer or materialman to perform labor or furnish material.

6. MECHANICS' LIENS — Church — Church Embraced in Section 6426 of the Code of 1930. — There is no reason arising out of the nature of church property in general for excepting it from the general terms of section 6426 of the Code of 1930. That a church is embraced in the language "any building" is not open to doubt.

7. MECHANICS' LIENS — Sections 45 and 46 of the Code of 1930 Inhibit Voluntary Liens on Church Property. — Sections 45 and 46 of the Code of 1930 inhibit the placing of certain voluntary liens on church property unless the specific requirements of the statute are met. There is no inhibition in the statutes against a congregation contracting a debt for the improvement of property, provided it is done in conformity with the rules of the church.

8. DEBTS — Liens — Debts and Liens Distinguished. — A debt is in no sense a lien upon the property of the debtor, until reduced to judgment or secured by a deed of trust or mortgage upon the property.

9. MECHANICS' LIENS — Architect — Estoppel of Architect to Assert Lien — Case at Bar. — In the instant case appellant, an architect, was asserting a mechanic's lien upon the property of a church. It was contended by appellees that even though appellant was entitled to a lien, he was estopped from asserting it against appellees. The grounds relied on to effectuate an estoppel are that appellant approved the contract under which appellees built the church; that appellant approved a loan made by a mortgage company on the church property which enured to the benefit of appellees; that appellant was cognizant of the execution of the deeds of trust to secure the claim of the appellee contractor, in accordance with the contract of employment. The parties dealt at arm's length. It was a part of appellant's duty as an architect to protect the duly constituted committee of the church in making the contract. There was no promise upon the part of appellant, either express or implied, that he would not assert his legal rights.

Held: That there was no basis for the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the instant case.

Appeal from a decree of the Corporation Court of the city of Charlottesville. Decree for defendants. Complainant appeals.

The opinion states the case.

Allen, Walsh & Waddell and T. Justin Moore, for the appellant.

Gilmer & Graves, for the appellees.

CAMPBELL, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was instituted by Herbert L. Cain to enforce an alleged mechanic's lien duly filed on the property of the High Street Baptist Church of Charlottesville, for the balance of compensation claimed to be due for labor performed in connection with the erection of a church building.

On January 1, 1926, the congregation of the church, in a meeting called in conformity with the rules of that religious denomination, decided to erect on a lot near the University of Virginia, a church for the accommodation of the Baptist students attending that institution, and for the extension of its widening sphere of spiritual influence.

A subsequent meeting of the congregation was held on January 15, 1926, the minutes of which reveal:

"The recommendation of the new church committee and the action of the church on said recommendation January 1, 1926, was brought up, as some were opposed to the recommendation and action referred to a lengthy discussion followed.

"In view of the fact that the meeting had been duly announced from the pulpit on January 3rd and 10th, respectively, and the membership had been notified by canvassers, and the distribution of letters by a committee, a record crowd was present. Mr. W. H. Sadler moved that a vote be taken to confirm the action of the church on January 1, 1926. The motion was duly seconded. The vote was a rising one and the motion was carried by a vote of 179 to 29, a majority of 150."

The proof shows that Cain was present at the meeting and read to the congregation a tentative contract of employment as architect; that after some discussion it "was voted to go ahead with it," and that some days later the contract, with minor changes, was signed by Cain, H. K. Hawthorne, trustee, R. Merritt Robinson, trustee, and M. L. Rea, trustee. The proof is conclusive that Cain supplied the plans for the erection of the handsome building, the ultimate cost of which amounted to approximately $160,000, and that he fully carried out his part of the contract requiring him to supervise the construction thereof and to inspect the materials furnished by the contractor.

To the bill of complaint respondents filed a demurrer, relying on the following grounds:

"1. Breach, if any, of the contract between the trustees of the High Street Baptist Church of Charlottesville and the plaintiff, did not create a lien on the church property.

"2. The plaintiff has no valid lien on the church property sought to be subjected and sold in this proceeding.

"3. A mechanic's lien can not be asserted against church property because liens can be placed on church property only in accordance with the provisions of the statutes for such cases made and provided. The sections of the Virginia Code providing for mechanics' liens do not apply to church property.

"4. The plaintiff is not entitled to a prior lien on the property as alleged in the bill."

The demurrer was overruled and no further defense was interposed by the trustees. Thereupon, The Charlottesville Lumber Company, the general contractor for the erection of the church building, was by decree permitted to file its petition in the suit as a party defendant. The main allegations of the petition are, that petitioner is the named beneficiary in a deed of trust executed by the proper authorities of the church, with the approval of the court and duly recorded to secure petitioner in the sum of $97,672.06; that the deed of trust is paramount to the claim of complainant; and that the alleged mechanic's lien is null and void, for the reason that the statutes prescribing the methods under which a lien may be placed upon church property have not been complied with.

The cause was heard upon the bill of complaint, the petition of the lumber company and the depositions of witnesses, and on January 16, 1932, the chancellor decreed that complainant was not entitled to a mechanic's lien.

The main question to be decided is a pure question of law, viz: whether under the Virginia statutes a mechanic's lien, filed under the provisions of Code, section 6426, attaches to church property held by trustees.

Section 45 of the Code provides that whenever a congregation of a church, in conformity with the mode prescribed by its authorities, has given its assent for the sale or mortgage of its property, then any member of the congregation may institute a suit to carry into effect the will of the congregation,...