Tacoma Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Kennedy

• Decision Date: 12 May 1892
• Citation: 30 P. 79,4 Wash. 305
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: TACOMA LUMBER & MANUF'G CO. v. KENNEDY ET AL.

30 P. 79

4 Wash. 305

TACOMA LUMBER & MANUF'G CO. v. KENNEDY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 12, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; JOHN BEVERLY, Judge.

Action by the Tacoma Lumber & Manufacturing Company against J. W Kennedy and others to enforce a mechanic's lien. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed.

John C. Stallcup and Stanton Warburton, for appellants.

E T. Dunning, for respondent.

SCOTT J.

This was an action brought to foreclose a mechanic's lien. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appealed. One of the questions raised, and the only one that it is necessary to determine, goes to the sufficiency of the lien notice. It recites that plaintiff claims a lien against the property hereinafter described for materials furnished in the construction of buildings, improvements, and structures thereon, without in any wise naming the kind of materials that were furnished, or the character or number of buildings or improvements in the construction of which said materials were used; nor does it give any information whatever as to whether or not there were one or more buildings erected upon said premises in which said materials were used, or what the nature of the improvements was, or whether a portion of the material was used in the construction of the building, and a portion of it in the erection of some other improvement; nor does it afford any information as to the character of the material in any way. The owner is certainly entitled to this information in order that he may inform himself as to the justness of the claim; he certainly should not be compelled arbitrarily to pay a claim of this kind without any information whatever as to its merits. This is practically admitted by the respondent, but it is contended that the information is afforded to the owner upon the bringing of the action to foreclose the lien. The information at this time, however, comes too late. It comes with a bill of costs, which he has had no opportunity to avoid, excepting by the payment of the lien claim, without any information as to what it was really for, other than that it was for some kind of material furnished for one or more buildings, or for some kind of an improvement or improvements, upon the premises described. We have decided in the case of Warren v. Quade, 29 P. 827, (not yet officially reported,) that the statement in the lien notice of the terms and...