Spears v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 26 December 1894
• Citation: 10 Wash. 368,38 P. 1049
• Parties: SPEARS ET AL. v. LAWRENCE ET UX. ROTHWELL ET AL. v. LAWRENCE ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

38 P. 1049

10 Wash. 368

SPEARS ET AL. v. LAWRENCE ET UX.

ROTHWELL ET AL. v. LAWRENCE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 26, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Whatcom county; John R. Winn, Judge.

Action by Rothwell Bros. & Mitchell and others against F. C Lawrence and wife, R. C. Jordan, and others, to foreclose a mechanic's lien. R.I. Morse was made a party defendant as claimant of another lien, and filed a cross complaint. Spears & Leonard filed a complaint against the same defendants to foreclose other liens. The actions were consolidated. From a judgment sustaining the lien of Spears & Leonard, defendants F. C. Lawrence and wife appeal, and from a judgment dismissing his cross complaint, defendant Morse appeals. Modified.

Dorr, Hadley & Hadley, for appellant Morse.

Bruce Brown & Cleveland, for appellants Lawrence.

J. J Weisenburger and J. R. Crites, for respondents Spears &amp Leonard.

HOYT J.

The questions raised by this appeal relate to the sufficiency of the proceedings of the lower court in the foreclosure of certain liens against the property of F. C. Lawrence and his wife, Ada L. Lawrence. Such proceedings were had in a consolidated case involving a large number of liens, all growing out of the contract of one R. C. Jordan to erect a certain building for the defendant F. C. Lawrence. The parts of the decree which are here for review relate to claims growing out of two of such liens. One in favor of defendants Spears & Leonard was sustained, and a decree of foreclosure rendered thereon, from which the defendants F. C. Lawrence and Ada L. Lawrence have appealed. The other relates to the claim of R.I. Morse, which was disallowed by the superior court, and a foreclosure denied, and from that part of the decree said Morse has prosecuted an appeal.

We will first examine that part of the decree relating to the lien of Spears & Leonard. It is attacked upon only two substantial grounds. The first relates to the sufficiency of the lien notice, and the other to the alleged facts that the improvement was upon the separate property of the wife, Ada L. Lawrence, and that no authority was shown from her to her husband to enter into the contract under which it was made. As to the first, we have only this to say: The lien notice set out a special contract by Spears & Leonard to furnish the materials and do the work necessary to the full completion of the painting of the building in accordance with the contract between the principal contractor and said Lawrence. And while it is true that the owner of the building would not be bound by the contract made between his contractor and the subcontractor, if it was shown to be fraudulent or improvident, yet, in the absence of such showing, it must be presumed that the contract is such as would be enforced by the courts. This being so, we think the statement of the contract in the lien notice was sufficient. There was no separate contract for the labor and for the materials, but one gross contract for everything required in the prosecution of that particular work; and, this being so, there could not well be set out a claim under said contract for separate amounts for materials and for labor. As to the fact that the improvement was upon property alleged to be the separate estate of the wife, we...