Lax v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 24 December 1889
• Citation: 42 Minn. 214,44 N.W. 3
• Parties: LAX ET AL. v PETERSON ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

42 Minn. 214

44 N.W. 3

LAX ET AL.vPETERSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 24, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The term “lot of land,” as used in the mechanics' lien law, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 90, § 1,) is not limited to the particular city, town, or village lot upon which the building is erected, as bounded and described on the plat, but denotes one single parcel lying in a body, known and treated by usage or the contract of the parties as one tract. Hence, where the owner of two contiguous town lots contracts by one entire contract for the erection of a row of houses upon them, the parties will be deemed to have connected and treated the whole as one tract.

2. Where labor is performed or material furnished under one entire contract for the erection of several buildings owned by the same person, and situated upon the same tract of land, a lien attaches upon the whole tract as entirety for the whole value of such labor or material. But in such a case, if the party knows, and has the means of proving, the kind and amount of material and labor which in fact went into the construction of each building, his lien will not be lost or prejudiced by the fact that he filed a separate claim against each building for the amount of labor and material which actually entered into its construction, provided there are no third parties interested in the property whose rights would be affected.

3. Where a subcontractor furnishes material to the contractor of the owner of the premises, and such owner subsequently, and before the filing of the claim for a lien, sells and conveys them, the fact that the affidavit for a lien states that the contractor to whom the material was furnished was the agent and contractor of the grantee (the present owner) instead of the grantor (the former owner) will not invalidate the lien.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; LOCHREN, Judge.

Laybourn & McHugh, for appellants.

Wadsworth & Wadsworth and Fred B. Lathrop, for Hill, Hosmer & Co. Borgholthaus & Cameron, for Wheaton, Reynolds & Co. Gjertsen & Rand, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

These are actions to enforce mechanics' liens. The facts, so far as material for the purposes of this appeal, are as follows: Leichleter owned two contiguous lots in the city of Minneapolis, containing less than one acre, and having an aggregate frontage on the same street of 116 feet. He made a contract with Oleson for the sale of both lots, by the terms of which it was provided that Oleson should build four houses on them. Peter A. Peterson then contracted with Oleson to furnish all the material and perform all the labor for the construction of the four houses, except the foundations, cellars, and cisterns, for a gross sum. Lax & Nilson contracted with Oleson to build the foundations, cellars, and cisterns for all the houses for another gross sum. Wheaton, Reynolds & Co. and Hill, Hosmer & Co. each sold and delivered to Peter A. Peterson building material for the construction of the houses. The labor of Lax & Nilson was performed, and the material of Wheaton, Reynolds & Co. was furnished, each under one entire contract for the four houses; but such labor was in fact performed, and materials used, in the construction of each of the houses in equal amounts, all of the houses being substantially alike. Although Hill, Hosmer & Co. sold all of their material on the same occasion, yet they sold a separate bill for each house, (each bill being the duplicate of the other,) and the same amount and kind of material entered into the construction of each house. The buildings were designed for dwellings, and were all built in a row fronting on the street, one house on each half lot, or 29 feet front, according to the recorded plat. The houses were not contiguous, and it may be fairly inferred, from the character of the buildings, that they were designed to be used, when completed, as separate dwellings, and not as appurtenant to each other. Hans O. Peterson, the appellant, after all these contracts for labor and material had been made, and after most of it had been performed or furnished, but before the houses were completed, purchased the whole property, receiving a warranty deed of the same from Leichleter, and a quitclaim from Oleson. Lax & Nilson filed a single claim for a lien for their entire labor against the whole property, viz., the two lots and the four houses; while Wheaton, Reynolds & Co. and Hill, Hosmer & Co. filed four separate claims for liens, each for one-fourth of their bill and against each house separately and the half lot on which it stood.

The first and principal question in the case is as to the correctness of the mode or manner adopted by these parties in filing their lien claims. That Hill, Hosmer & Co. proceeded properly in filing a separate...