Olson v. Boling

• Decision Date: 08 February 1927
• Citation: 252 P. 961,120 Or. 554
• Parties: OLSON v. BOLING ET UX.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

252 P. 961

120 Or. 554

OLSON v. BOLING ET UX.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 8, 1927

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Columbia County; J. A. Eakin, Judge.

Suit by Ole Olson against Charles Boling and wife, wherein defendants interposed a counterclaim. From a decree for plaintiff defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This is a suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien. The plaintiff agreed to build a six-room house for the defendants, doing all of the carpenter work above the foundation for $660. No plans or specifications were drawn. The contract between the plaintiff and defendants was oral. During the progress of the work a number of changes were made from the original contract, for which the plaintiff claimed extras amounting to $253.52. The defendants offered to pay the contract price soon after the house was completed, but refused to pay for the extra work claimed by the plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff prepared and filed a lien, and this suit resulted. The defendants for a defense and counterclaim alleged that the house was not constructed as agreed upon; that owing to poor workmanship it is unsatisfactory, and the defendants have been damaged in the sum of $700 by reason of poor construction. The testimony consists of nearly 500 pages. The court found in favor of the plaintiff for $660, the contract price, and $125 for extra work, allowing to the defendants the sum of $35.50 as an offset for either defective work or work not completed. The defendants had paid the plaintiff $245. The judgment and decree is for the sum of $505, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from November 23, 1923, the date the house was completed, the further sum of $2 for recording the lien notice, $200 for attorney's fee and costs and disbursements.

John L Storla, of St. Helens, for appellants.

Glen R Metsker, of St. Helens, for respondent.

COSHOW J. (after stating the facts as above).

The entire question submitted to this court with one exception which will be noted later, is one of fact and not of law. We have carefully read the testimony and given it due consideration, and we concur with the findings of fact made by the learned circuit court. In behalf of the defendants there was considerable evidence of defective work, but there was equally credible testimony to the effect that the workmanship, in the main, was good. The witnesses for the defendants did not agree in their testimony regarding the defective work, and we think the evidence preponderates in favor of the plaintiff. It would be of no value to any one for us...