J. D. English Steel Co. v. Tacoma School Dist. No. 10
| Decision Date | 05 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35305,35305 |
| Citation | 358 P.2d 319,57 Wn.2d 502 |
| Parties | J. D. ENGLISH STEEL COMPANY, a Washington corporation, Respondent, v. TACOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 10, a municipal corporation, Defendant, Ostruske-Murphy, Inc., a Washington corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Eisenhower, Hunter & Ramsdell, Tacoma, for appellant.
Metzger, Blair & Gardner, Tacoma, for respondent.
March 27, 1957, Ostruske-Murphy, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the prime contractor), contracted with Tacoma School District No. 10 for the construction of an addition to the Tacoma Vocational School. April 1, 1957, the prime contractor entered into a subcontract with North American Prestressed Concrete Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as NAPCO), by the terms of which NAPCO agreed to fabricate certain concrete beams and slabs for the addition.
Between May 16 and September 10, 1957, J. D. English Steel Company (hereinafter referred to as the materialman) delivered to NAPCO at the job site, or on adjoining city property, certain steel materials which were used in the fabrication of the beams and slabs. NAPCO defaulted on its payment to the materialman for the steel.
The materialman commenced this action pursuant to the public works lien statute (RCW 60.28.010) to recover from the retained percentage of the contract between the prime contractor and the school district the sum of $5,413.65 for the materials furnished to NAPCO.
The defendant school district appeared and filed its certificate setting forth that it had retained $69,150.59, but that, by stipulation of the parties, it had released to the prime contractor all but $6,000.
The court's judgment awarded plaintiff materialman the full amount of its claim, declared it to be a first lien upon the retained percentage, and directed the defendant school district to satisfy the award therefrom. The prime contractor has appealed.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in including the words 'provisions' and 'supplies' in its findings of fact. Provisions and supplies are, by statute, items subject to lien. RCW 60.28.010, supra. The trial court found that the articles furnished by the materialman came within the meaning of the term 'provisions and supplies.' The court's finding of fact is supported by the record. We find no merit in this assignment of error.
The appellant next contends that respondent does not qualify as a person or materialman entitled to the benefits of RCW 60.28.010, supra. Appellant argues, in support of its contention, that NAPCO was not a subcontractor, but a materialman, and that those supplying materials to materialmen are not within the statute. The statute provides that the retained percentage is
'* * * a trust fund for the protection and payment of any person or persons, mechanic, subcontractor or materialman who shall perform any labor upon such contract or the doing of said work, and all persons who shall supply such person or persons or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farwest Steel Corp. v. Mainline Metal Works, Inc.
...repair of a building, structure, or vessel." There is no Washington case defining materialmen. Cf. J.D. English Steel Co. v. Tacoma School District No. 10, 57 Wash.2d 502, 358 P.2d 319 (1961) (court expressly declined to review the trial court's finding that a There is, however, extensive a......
-
Norris Industries v. Halverson-Mason Constructors
...Island Gun Club, 77 Wash. 304, 137 P. 511 (1914). This may have been the thinking of the parties in J.D. English Steel Co. v. Tacoma School Dist. 10, 57 Wash.2d 502, 503, 358 P.2d 319 (1961), where the claimant was awarded the contract price against a retention fund and no issue as to the m......
-
Crabtree v. Lewis
...toward the completion of the improvement or work. It was contended by the defendant contractor in J.D. English Steel Co. v. Tacoma School Dist. No. 10, 57 Wash.2d 502, 358 P.2d 319 (1961), that only creditors of the prime contractor were entitled to a lien upon the retained percentage, citi......
-
Tarasyuk v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co.
...of error directed only to conclusions of law do not raise for review findings of fact. J.D. English Steel Co. v. Tacoma School District Number 10, 57 Wn.2d 502-04, 358 P.2d 319 (1961). We treat unchallenged findings of fact as verities on appeal. State v. O'Neill, 148 Wn.2d 564, 571, 62 P.3......