Gordon v. Deal

• Decision Date: 07 November 1892
• Parties: GORDON v. DEAL.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

31 P. 287

23 Or. 153

GORDON v. DEAL.

Supreme Court of Oregon

November 7, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; L.B. STEARNS, Judge.

Suit by George W. Gordon against William Breidenstein, Margaret Marshall, and Mrs. J. Deal. Decree against Mrs. Deal, from which she appeals. Reversed.

Cox Teal & Minor and W.H. Winfree, for appellant.

Geo. H. Williams, for respondent.

BEAN J.

This is a suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien upon lot 5, in block 27, of Couch's addition to the city of Portland owned by Mrs. Margaret Marshall, and upon a certain building thereon owned by Mrs. J. Deal, the lessee of the land. The lien was held valid by the court below, and a decree entered against Mrs. Deal, foreclosing the lien and ordering her interest in the property sold, from which she appeals. The contention of counsel for appellant is that the statement or notice of the lien set out in the pleadings does not in any respect comply with the requirements of section 5 of the act relating to mechanics' liens. Hill's Code, § 3673. It is unnecessary for us to notice all the objections urged, as we are of the opinion that one point made is fatal to plaintiff's claim. Under the provisions of the section referred to, it is, among other things, essential to the validity of a mechanic's lien that the name of the owner or reputed owner of the building, improvements, or structure upon which the lien is sought to be enforced should be stated in the claim as filed. This requirement is one of substance so made by the statute, and cannot be dispensed with. Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Or. 529, 16 P. 407. It is essential to the validity of a lien, under this section, that the statement filed must on its face show prima facie that the claimant was entitled to a lien, and for that purpose must, among other things, state the name of the owner or reputed owner of the building, if known. 2 Jones, Liens, §§ 1392, 1397; Anderson v. Knudsen, 33 Minn. 172, 22 N.W. 302; Malter v. Mining Co., 18 Nev. 209, 2 P 50; Mayes v. Ruffners, 8 W.Va. 384; McCay's Appeal, 37 Pa.St. 125. It is not sufficient that the name of the owner appears in the lien incidentally, or as part of the description of the property, but it must appear on the face of the lien, as an independent matter, either directly or by necessary inference, that he is the owner of the building sought to be charged. Conter v. Farrington, 46 Minn. 336, 48 N.W. 1134; Reindollar v. Flickinger, 59 Md. 469. The spirit and purpose of the act relating to mechanics' liens being to secure to contractors, laborers, and materialmen the right to enforce their claims against the property benefited by their labor or material, it should receive a liberal construction in furtherance of that object. But in following this rule it should be borne in mind that a mechanic's lien is purely a creature of the statute, and that it can only be obtained by a substantial compliance therewith. It is "a remedy given by law, which secures the preference provided for, but which does not exist, however equitable the claim may be, unless the party brings himself within the provisions of the statute." Phil.Mech. Liens, § 9. Whatever the statute makes necessary to the existence of the lien must be complied with, in order to obtain the benefit of its provisions. The courts cannot by construction dispense with any of the requirements of the...