Meyers Lumber Company, a Corp. v. Tompkins

• Decision Date: 28 November 1914
• Citation: 149 N.W. 955,29 N.D. 76
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

149 N.W. 955

29 N.D. 76

MEYERS LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation,
v.
JARVIS H. TOMPKINS

Supreme Court of North Dakota

November 28, 1914

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, K. E. Leighton, J.

Reversed.

Thompson & Wooledge, Engerud, Holt, & Frame, for appellant.

In some states there is a distinction between the terms "subcontractor" and "materialman." This is not true in this state. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6250.

A direct lien is given to the subcontractor. Robertson Lumber Co. v. State Bank, 14 N.D. 515, 105 N.W. 719; Langworthy Lumber Co. v. Hunt, 19 N.D. 436, 122 N.W. 865.

It is the furnishing of the materials for the purpose of the construction, and the good faith delivery that controls and gives the lien right. Schlosser v. Moores, 16 N.D. 185, 112 N.W. 79; Central Lumber Co. v. Braddock Land & Granite Co. 84 Ark. 560, 105 S.W. 583, 13 Ann. Cas. 11; 27 Cyc. 47, note 67, and note p. 758; Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Leary, 25 S.D. 256, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 746, 126 N.W. 271, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 928.

One who furnishes materials to a contractor who has separate contracts with the different owners has no right to a joint lien against all the property of the different owners into whose building his material went, but must claim and file a separate lien against the property of each of such owners. Meyer Lumber Co. v. Trygstad, 22 N.D. 558, 134 N.W. 714.

In such cases an apportionment may be made. Kinney v. Mathias, 81 Minn. 64, 83 N.W. 497; Davis v. Farr, 13 Pa. 167; Harper v. Keely, 17 Pa. 234; Gordon v. Norton, 186 Pa. 168, 40 A. 312; Edwards v. Edwards, 24 Ohio St. 403; Sexton v. Weaver, 141 Mass. 273, 6 N.E. 367; Halsted & H. Co. v. Arick, 76 Conn. 382, 56 A. 628; Ballou v. Black, 17 Neb. 389, 23 N.W. 3, 21 Neb. 131, 31 N.W. 673; Shaw v. Thompson, 105 Mass. 345; Hannon v. Logan, 14 Mo.App. 33; Byrd v. Cochran, 39 Neb. 109, 58 N.W. 127; Hines v. Cockran, 44 Neb. 12, 62 N.W. 299; Garner v. Van Patten, 20 Utah 342, 58 P. 684; Hayden v. Logan, 9 Mo.App. 492; Springer Land Asso. v. Ford, 168 U.S. 513, 42 L.Ed. 562, 18 S.Ct. 170; Lehmer v. Horton, 67 Neb. 574, 93 N.W. 964, 2 Ann. Cas. 685; Bowman Lumber Co. v. Newton, 72 Iowa 90, 33 N.W. 377; Stoltze v. Hurd, 20 N.D. 412, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1219, 128 N.W. 115, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 871; 34 Century Dig. Mechanics' Liens, 178-182, 259, 315, 320, 322; 13 Decen. Dig. Mechanics' Liens, 130, 149, 183 and corresponding sections in Am. Dig. Key number series. 27 Cyc. 131, 224, 226.

The notices served were amply sufficient to satisfy the law. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6237.

The purpose of the notice required is to enable the owner to take all necessary steps for his own protection against the possibility of having to pay twice for the same improvement. Gilman v. Gard, 29 Ind. 291; Henry v. Plitt, 84 Mo. 237; Bambrick v. King, 59 Mo.App. 284; 27 Cyc. 110, 118; Fidelity Storage Corp. v. Trussed Concrete Steel Co. 35 App. D. C. 1, 20 Ann. Cas. 1157; Faulkner v. Bridget, 110 Mo.App. 377, 86 S.W. 483.

E. R. Sinkler, for respondent.

The plaintiff once elected as to its remedy; it had knowledge of the facts as to coexistent remedial rights, inconsistent and irrevocable; and such election is a bar to any action based upon a remedial right inconsistent with that asserted by such election. 15 Cyc. 262.

The Pennsylvania rule, which gives a direct lien to the subcontractor, does not obtain in this state. It is not the contract between the materialman and the contractor, but the contract between the owner of the property and the contractor, that controls. Meyer Lumber Co. v. Trygstad, 22 N.D. 558, 134 N.W. 714; Beach v. Stamper, 44 Ore. 4, 102 Am. St. Rep. 597, 74 P. 209; Larkins v. Blakeman, 42 Conn. 292.

The right to a mechanics' lien exists by virtue of the statute; and to successfully claim and maintain such right, substantial compliance at every step, with the statute, must be shown. Stoltz v. Hurd, 20 N.D. 412, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1219, 128 N.W. 115, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 871.

Where lienable and nonlienable articles are indiscriminately intermingled in one lien claim, the lien cannot stand. McClain v. Hutton Continental Bldg. & Loan Asso. 131 Cal. 140, 61 P. 274, 63 P. 182, 622; J. E. Greilick Co. v. Taylor, 143 Mich. 704, 107 N.W. 712; Bradely v. Gaghan, 208 Pa. 511, 57 A. 985; Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Ore. 150, 44 P. 393; Dalles Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Wasco Woolen Mfg. Co. 3 Ore. 527; Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Ore. 529, 16 P. 407; Williams v. Toledo Coal Co. 25 Ore. 426, 42 Am. St. Rep. 799, 36 P. 159; 2 Jones, Liens, 1409, 1419.

It is the duty of materialmen dealing with contractors and furnishing them with materials, to ascertain and know the nature of the contract between the property owner and the contractor, and to take notice of the authority of, and the limitations placed upon, such contractor. Andrews v. Kneeland, 6 Cow. 354; Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592, 26 P. 13; Kneeland, Mechanics' Liens, 87; Bottomly v. Grace Church, 2 Cal. 90; Houghton v. Blake, 5 Cal. 240; Rogers v. Currier, 13 Gray, 129; Chapin v. Persse & B. Paper Works, 30 Conn. 461, 79 Am. Dec. 263.

In such cases as this one, no apportionment can possibly be made. No lien can attach unless the articles are lienable, can be identified, and actually went into the improvement. Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angeles Traction Co. 141 Cal. 30, 74 P. 357...