Heald v. Hodder

• Decision Date: 06 February 1893
• Citation: 32 P. 728,5 Wash. 677
• Parties: HEALD v. HODDER ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

32 P. 728

5 Wash. 677

HEALD v. HODDER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 6, 1893

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Frank Allyn, Judge.

Action by Zachary Heald against Mary Hodder, John Hodder, and others to foreclose a lien for work and labor by plaintiff on defendants' buildings. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Claypool & Haight, for appellant.

Snell &amp Bedford, for respondents.

HOYT J.

This action was brought to foreclose a lien for labor alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff on two certain houses which were being erected for the defendants Hodder by the other defendants. The court below found as a fact that the labor for which the lien was claimed was performed upon the sole credit of the contractors who were erecting the buildings, and with no intent to claim a lien thereon. Taking all the testimony in the record together, we think it justified this finding. It is true that there were some isolated statements in the testimony of the plaintiff which tended to show that he at all times intended to claim a lien upon the buildings for his labor, but some of his own testimony is inconsistent with this theory, and, when all of it is investigated in the light of facts sufficiently established by other proofs in the case, we think it does not sustain his contention that he so intended to claim a lien. The proof is unsatisfactory as to whether or not he kept any correct account showing just how many days he worked upon these particular buildings. His time book, offered in evidence, shows that the labor for which he claimed a lien was more than half of it performed in December, while the testimony, taken as a whole, conclusively shows that the buildings upon which he sought to enforce his lien were not commenced until some time in January, the contract for their erection not having been entered into until after the 1st of January. From this it will be seen that his testimony as to the amount of labor which he had performed upon these particular buildings was very unsatisfactory, and, when taken in connection with the conceded fact that he was regularly employed for a period extending over a year or more by the firm who had the contract for erecting these buildings, and worked for them indiscriminately upon these or other buildings as they directed, it seems clear that the conclusion of the lower court was right.

Besides there is no attempt by him to definitely specify as to how much of the work for which he claimed a lien was done upon each of the two buildings owned by said defendants Hodder nor is there any attempt to show such a state of facts as would justify a joint lien for the whole amount upon both of said buildings. There is a claim made only for a separate lien as against each of the buildings for half of the amount due for such labor, upon the general allegation and proof that the work proceeded upon said buildings together, and that he thinks he performed about as much labor upon the one as on the other. The fact that he failed to keep...