Phoenix Furniture Co. v. Put-in-Bay Hotel Co.

• Decision Date: 20 February 1895
• Docket Number: 1,088.
• Citation: 66 F. 683
• Parties: PHOENIX FURNITURE CO. v. PUT-IN-BAY HOTEL CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

66 F. 683

PHOENIX FURNITURE CO. v. PUT-IN-BAY HOTEL CO. et al.

No. 1,088.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division.

February 20, 1895

George H. Beckwith and A. L. Smith, for complainant.

M. G Bloch and J. K. Hamilton, for E. O. Fallis & Co.

A. P Crane and W. H. A. Read, for John M. Crocker.

RICKS District Judge.

The journal entry referring this case to a special master is not before me, neither are its terms referred to in the master's report; so I am not sure as to the exact nature of the order under which the reference was made. But I have no recollection of the court's passing upon any legal questions involved, so that I assume that the case falls within that of Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U.S. 512, 9 Sup.Ct. 355, and Davis v. Schwartz, 15 Sup.Ct. 239 in so far as the weight to be given to the master's findings of facts is concerned.

There are no serious questions of fact involved in any of the exceptions pressed by counsel for any of the parties. The most important questions are questions of law, and are involved in the claims of E. O. Fallis & Co. and John M. Crocker. Fallis & Co. claim a mechanic's lien for preparing plans and specifications for the building known as the 'Hotel Victory,' and for the general superintendence of the work of constructing the same. This claim is resisted very earnestly on the following grounds: First. That, under the laws of the state of Ohio, an architect is not entitled to a mechanic's lien, either for preparing plans and specifications for a building, or for the general superintendence of the work of constructing the same. Second. That they failed to comply with the plain requirements of the statute relative to the filing of the same, and insist that inasmuch as the plans and specifications were prepared in Lucas county, Ohio, the lien should not be filed in Ottawa county, Ohio. Third. That no valid contract was ever made between the Put-in-Bay Hotel Company, or its authorized agent, and E. O. Fallis & Co. Fourth. That the work was abandoned in the fall of 1889, and the lien was not filed within four months thereafter. Fifth. The omission to set forth in the lien filed by Fallis & Co. the changes subsequently made in the original plans of the hotel confines such lien to the amount of the original contract. Sixth. The cost of the hotel does not amount to the sum claimed by the defendants Fallis & Co., on which they have computed their lien. Seventh. That Fallis & Co. are estopped from asserting a lien as against the first mortgage.

The mere statement of these several grounds for exception would indicate the facts in dispute, and, in so far as the master has reported upon them, I think they are conclusive, in the absence of anything to show that they are unsupported by the evidence. Upon all these questions of fact the master has found in favor of the defendants E. O. Fallis & Co., to wit That there was a valid contract between the Put-in-Bay Hotel Company and Fallis &...