Rees v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 15 September 1908 |
| Citation | 97 P. 245,50 Wash. 339 |
| Parties | REES v. WILSON et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson, Judge.
Action by George H. Rees against Hugh I. Wilson and another copartners doing business as the Wilson & White Company, C L. Miller, and another, to foreclose a mechanic's lien. There was a personal judgment against defendant Miller, and a dismissal as against the other defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Shank & Smith, for appellant.
George McKay and Thomas B. MacMahon, for respondents.
On October 17, 1903, the owners of the property known as the 'Rainier-Grand Hotel,' in Seattle, leased the same to W. McC. White and Hugh I. Wilson both of Silver Bow, Mont for a term of years. Immediately on the execution of the lease the lessees put their representative in charge of the property. They thereupon formed a corporation under the laws of the state of Montana, under the name of the Wilson & White Company, which company took possession of the property some four or five days after the execution of the lease. A formal assignment of the lease was made in writing some six months later. In November, 1904, the corporation entered into a contract with the defendant C. L. Miller, by which Miller agreed to make certain repairs and changes in the hotel buildings, which included the laying of certain tiling on the hotel barroom floor. Miller sublet the contract for laying the tiling to the appellant, George H. Rees. Rees laid tiling on the floor, but of a different color and pattern from that called for in the plans and specifications, according to which Miller agreed to do the work in his contract with the Wilson & White Company. The company refused to accept or pay for the work as a compliance on Miller's part of its contract with him; and, on Miller's refusal to pay for it, the appellant filed a lien on the lessee's interest in the hotel property to secure payment. This action was brought to foreclose the lien. The action was begun originally against Wilson and White, as copartners, and C. L Miller. Afterwards, but not until eight calendar months had expired from the time of filing the lien, the Wilson & White Company was made a party defendant. The respondent defended upon two grounds: (1) That the tiling laid did not conform to the agreement between the corporation and Miller; and (2) that the corporation was the owner of the leasehold interest against which the foreclosure was sought and the action was not begun against it until after the expiration of eight calendar months from the time the lien was filed. The court found in favor of the respondents on both grounds, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Bartz
... ... This necessarily ... results from the wording of the statute, as construed by this ... court in a number of decisions. Rees v. Wilson, 50 ... Wash. 339, 97 P. 245; Northwest Bridge Co. v. Tacoma ... Shipbuilding Co., 36 Wash. 333, 78 P. 996; Peterson ... ...
-
City Sash & Door Co. v. Bunn
...v. Nolan, 27 Wash. 318, 67 P. 712, 68 P. 389; Northwest Bridge Co. v. Tacoma Shipbuilding Co., 36 Wash. 333, 78 P. 996; Rees v. Wilson, 50 Wash. 339, 97 P. 245; Pickens v. Polk, 42 Neb. 267, 60 N.W. Ortwine v. Caskey, 43 Md. 134; Hughes v. Torgerson, 96 Ala. 346, 11 So. 209, 16 L. R. A. 600......
-
Curtis Lumber Co. v. Sortor
...after the lien is filed, else the court acquires no jurisdiction to enforce the lien. We have in effect so held in Rees v. Wilson (50 Wash. 339, 97 P. 245 (1908)), and Davis v. Bartz, It is interesting to note that Division II of the Court of Appeals, in Galvanizer's Co. v. State Highway Co......
-
McDermott v. Tolt Land Co.
...maintained. This necessarily results from the wording of the statute, as construed by this court in a number of decisions. Rees v. Wilson, 50 Wash. 339, 97 P. 245; Northwest Bridge Co. v. Tacoma Shipbuilding Co., Wash. 333, 78 P. 996. * * *' See, also, City Sash & Door Co. v. Bunn, 90 Wash.......