Clark v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 09 January 1903
• Citation: 88 Minn. 200,92 N.W. 964
• Parties: CLARK v. ANDERSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

88 Minn. 200

92 N.W. 964

CLARK

v.ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 9, 1903.

Appeal from district court, Morrison county; F. W. Lyon, Referee.

Action by George V. Clark against E. F. Anderson. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under chapter 277, Laws 1899, the right to perfect a lien for labor or material furnished in the construction of a building under contract with the owner does not accrue until the expiration of the time therein fixed within which the owner may demand of the contractor a verified statement of the amounts due from him to laborers or materialmen under him, and a lien statement filed prior to that time is ineffectual and invalid.

2. The fact that there are no laborers or others to whom anything is due from the contractor for work upon or material used in the construction of the building does not suspend the operation of the statute. If there be none such, a verified statement accordingly with be a sufficient compliance with the statute. Bergheim & Cameron, for appellant.

E. P. Adams and Crawford Sheldon, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, tried below before a referee, who ordered judgment for the plaintiff; and defendant appealed therefrom. The facts are as follows: Defendant was engaged in the construction of a building upon land owned by him, and employed plaintiff to perform certain labor upon its foundation. Plaintiff commenced work under this employment on the 4th of September, and finished on the 16th of the same month. On the 24th he perfected a lien upon the property by filing the proper lien statement in the office of the register of deeds, and on the next day commenced this action to foreclose the same. The only question presented for our consideration in respect to the merits of the case is whether, under chapter 277, Laws 1899, plaintiff's lien was prematurely filed. The preliminary objection by respondent that the appeal was taken from the findings and decision of the referee is held not well taken. A fair construction of the notice of appeal, though inaccurate as to the date of the judgment, and otherwise informal, leads to the conclusion that the defendant intended to appeal from the judgment, and not from the decision of the referee, and is sufficient. So we turn our attention to the merits of the case.

The act of the legislature just referred to provides, in substance and effect, that every person who shall perform any work or furnish any material for the erection or construction of a building...