Sarchet v. Legg

Decision Date17 October 1911
Citation118 P. 203,60 Or. 213
PartiesSARCHET et al. v. LEGG.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; W.N. Gatens, Judge.

Suit by A. H. Sarchet and others against Hattie E. Legg. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

This is a suit to foreclose alleged mechanics' liens. The defendant, Hattie E. Legg, entered into a contract with W.A Ridgen, whereby he stipulated to furnish the material and to construct for her a building on her lot in Pleasant View addition to Portland. Ridgen sublet the plastering of the house to the plaintiff A.H. Sarchet, the plumbing to Linnville & Meyers, partners, and the cement work to B.C Ross. The latter obtaining from Mason, Percy & Strickler, a corporation, material that was used in the structure. The value of the cement and the agreed price of the work so underlet, not having been fully paid, lien notices were filed against the defendant's real property by Linnville &amp Meyers, October 4, 1909, for $211; by Mason, Percy &amp Strickler, October 9th, for $27; and by Sarchet, October 11th, for $97.50. The latter instituted this suit, making the other lien claimants codefendants, who, answering, interposed cross-complaints to foreclose their liens. Answers to the several complaints were filed by Mrs. Legg, and the cause being at issue was tried, whereupon each claimant was awarded the sum respectively demanded, with interest from the time the notice was filed, and $1 as clerk's fees. There was also allowed attorneys' fees as follows: Sarchet, $35; Mason, Percy & Strickler, $25; and Linnville & Meyers, $50. From this decree, Mrs. Legg appeals.

J.F. Boothe, for appellant.

C.A. Sheppard (John B. Moon, on the brief), for respondents.

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

The only question involved is whether or not the lien notices were filed within the time limited. In order to create a lien, the original contractor must, within 60 days after the completion of his contract, and all other claimants must within 30 days after the completion, alteration, or repair of a structure, or after he has ceased to furnish materials therefor, file with the clerk a claim, etc. L.O.L. § 7420. Neither of the claimants herein being an original contractor, it is insisted that the notices were not filed within 30 days after the completion of the building, or after the claimants ceased to furnish materials therefor, and such being the case an error was committed in foreclosing the alleged liens.

D.B Fleckinger, an architect, who prepared the plans and specifications of the building and supervised its construction, testified that Ridgen did not do any work on the house after August 1, 1909, asserting that it was completed at that time, and that about two weeks thereafter Mrs. Legg accepted the building and paid the contractor the remainder due. This witness says he did not accept the house because of inferior workmanship, but that Mrs. Legg acquiesced in the defective handiwork, contrary to his orders. That, in order to connect a boiler to be installed in the building with a range, Ridgen was required to extend a pipe through a wall, which work he never performed, saying: "The owner and the contractor had mutually agreed to cut it out entirely from the plans and specifications." Fleckinger, on cross-examination, in referring to the performance of labor after August 14, 1909, when the building was accepted by the owner, testified as follows: "I employed the subcontractors to come on and finish some work that didn't seem to be incorporated in Ridgen's contract, and which from his standpoint he refused to do." He further stated upon oath that after Mrs. Legg paid for constructing the house, he had this piece of pipe put through the wall, but could not state whether it was in August or September, 1909. H.C. Ross, whose employé put in the pipe to connect the range and the boiler, in fixing the time when the work was done,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Allison v. Schuler
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • October 1, 1934
    ...not infrequently consider the facts in the light of the effect their application will accomplish. For instance, in Sarchet et al. v. Legg, 60 Or. 213, 118 P. 203, 204, cited by defendants, it is said: “In order to protect laborers and materialmen, our statute makes ample provision, and shou......
  • Craig v. Crystal Realty Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1918
    ... ... enacted. Ainslie & Co. v. Kohn, 16 Or. 363, 371, 19 ... P. 97; Willamette Mills Co. v. Shea, 24 Or. 40, 53, ... 32 P. 759; Sarchet v. Legg, 60 Or. 213, 218, 118 P ... 203. But when the statute is so interpreted, a substantial ... compliance with its requirements is ... ...
  • Drake Lumber Co. v. Lindquist
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1946
    ...and equity. Ainslie & Co. v. Kohn, 16 Or. 363, 19 P. 97; Osborn v. Logus, 28 Or. 302, 37 P. 456, 38 P. 190, 42 P. 997; Sarchet v. Legg, 60 Or. 213, 118 P. 203; Pacific Spruce Corporation v. Oregon Cement Co., 133 Or. 223, 286 P. 520, 289 P. 489, 72 A.L.R. 1507. Anyone claiming a lien by vir......
  • Christenson v. Behrens
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1962
    ...lien. See Stark-Davis Co. v. Wilson, 119 Or. 308, 248 P. 1095; Fox & Co. v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 107 Or. 557, 215 P. 178; Sarchet v. Legg, 60 Or. 213, 118 P. 203; and Crane Co. v. Ellis, 58 Or. 299, 114 P. We now return to the claim of Christenson, the plaintiff. The only service which Le......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT