Timber Structures v. C.W.S. Grinding & Mach. Works
Decision Date | 28 March 1951 |
Citation | 25 A.L.R.2d 1358,191 Or. 231,229 P.2d 623 |
Parties | , 25 A.L.R.2d 1358 TIMBER STRUCTURES, Inc. v. C. W. S. GRINDING & MACHINE WORKS. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Bert S. Gooding, of Portland (Stott & Gooding, of Portland, on the briefs), for appellant.
R. W. Nahstoll, of Portland (Eben, Jones & Nahstoll, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
Before BRAND, C. J., and HAY, LUSK, LATOURETTE and TOOZE, JJ.
This is a suit by Timber Structures, Inc., as plaintiff, against C. W. S. Grinding & Machine Works, an Oregon corporation, as defendant, to foreclose a lien for labor on lots 5 and 8, block 78, Couch's addition to the city of Portland. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation, with its main plant and home office located in Portland. It also operated a plant in Seattle. It is chiefly engaged in designing, fabricating, and erecting structural timbers, including those of substantial size and load capacity. A large portion of its operation is devoted to production of laminated beams of the type involved in this suit.
Defendant is the owner of lots 5 and 8, block 78, Couch's addition to the city of Portland, and in March, 1946, one C. Ed Rath was the builder under a contract with defendant for the construction of the building known as 'C. W. S. Grinding & Machine Works' on said lots. As a part of such construction certain beams and columns were necessary.
On March 14, 1946, Rath placed an oral order with one William E. Welch, a salesman for plaintiff, for certain laminated and sawn beams and columns. Upon receiving such order the first step taken by plaintiff was to have its engineering department prepare drawings showing required size, length, and load capacity of the proposed beams and columns. These specifications were approved by Rath. Thereupon, a sales order was prepared, dated March 30, 1946. The price agreed upon for the labor and materials involved was $4395.00. Later, a change in the size of the laminated beams was agreed upon, and the contract price was thereupon reduced $491.00, leaving a final contract price of $3904.00.
The order placed by Rath called for the following:
"Item Quan- Description No. tity "1 7 Glued laminated beams de- signed for 20' spacing, 40# live load, 10# dead load 7000# concentrated load at any point, size--14 3/4" x 291/4"-- 50' "2 1 12" x 18"--18' Sawn Beam "3 2 12" x 18"--16' Sawn Beams "4 3 10" x 12"--16' Columns "5 2 8" x 8"--8' Columns"
The contract, as shown on the sales order, also included the following:
'All necessary hardware needed for complete erection of the above material.
'All erected in place as per Timber Structures, Inc. drawing #7963-1, * * *
'Lumber in glued laminated beams to be dry and suitable for glueing, Para. 215 or Btr., Douglas Fir.
'Erection based on truck crane operation inside building.'
The structural timbers above described were not carried by plaintiff in stock, and they had to be specially built and adapted to the particular needs of the building being constructed for defendant. The material for the sawn beams and columns called for by the contract had to be purchased by plaintiff for this particular job. By scientific determination the timbers were designed to satisfy the needs of the particular building in terms of the smallest dimensions and the least material that would accommodate the load capacity, and also satisfy the other requirements of the building.
What is involved in the fabrication of a laminated beam, as well as in the making of the sawn beams and columns, is best described in the testimony of D. F. Kinder, secretary of plaintiff corporation. He testified:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
The witness then testified that the laminated beams weigh slightly less than sawn beams, and that each of the laminated beams weighed approximately five thousand pounds.
Describing the process of fabricating the sawn beams and columns, the witness testified:
It appears from the evidence that before this order was placed with plaintiff, it had suffered a fire in its Portland plant, making it necessary to transfer all its laminating facilities to its Seattle plant. As a result, the lumber involved in the production of the laminated beams was surfaced, scarfed, and glued in Seattle, but the final fabrication and surfacing were done in Portland.
There is substantial evidence in the record to establish the fact that these beams and columns were produced by plaintiff in accordance with the contract, also, that they were transported to the job site, and by the use of a crane, were erected by plaintiff in the building being constructed for defendant.
On March 14, 1947, and within the time provided by statute, plaintiff filed in the office of the county clerk for Multnomah county, its subcontractor's notice of mechanics' lien, claiming a lien upon the building for the reasonable value of the materials furnished and labor performed by plaintiff, alleged to be the sum of $3962.60. The lien notice was in the usual form and met all the requirements of the statute. The claim in the lien notice was itemized as follows:
'To Labor and Materials furnished and delivered in construction of building of C W S Grinding & Machine Works at 1110 N. W. Flanders St., Portland, Oregon, as follows:
"Materals: Timbers, lumber, hardware ---------- and misc. 1223.75 "Labor: Plant labor 2522.48 ---------- Job site labor 94.37 Trucking to site 72.00 Crane hire at site 50.00 --------- "Balance Due Claimant: $3962.60"
It appears from the evidence that plaintiff failed to give the notice to the owner or reputed owner of the property upon which such building was constructed that it had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Forsberg v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.
...348 (1964) (contributions to union health and welfare funds are part of the cost of labor); Timber Structures, Inc. v. C.W.S. Grinding & Mach. Works, 191 Or. 231, 229 P.2d 623, 631-32 (1951) (cost of casualty insurance and boarding costs are part of the reasonable value of the labor perform......
-
State By and Through State Highway Commission v. Arnold
...of that discretion may be reviewed on appeal. Tuite v. Union Pacific Stages, Inc., supra; Timber Structures v. C. W. S. Grinding & Mach. Works, 1951, 191 Or. 231, 229 P.2d 623, 25 A.L.R.2d 1358; Stonebrink v. Highland Motors, 1943, 171 Or. 415, 137 P.2d Mr. Holbrook attempted to qualify as ......
-
McGregor Co. v. Heritage
...was Heritage Farms, Inc., a corporation. In support of that contention defendant Dunn cites our decision in Timber Structures v. C.W.S.G. Wks., 191 Or. 231, 229 P.2d 623 (1951), in which we said (at 246, 229 P.2d 623) in referring to a lien statute "The statute is strictly construed as to p......
-
Chesebro-Whitman Co. v. Edenboro Apartments, Inc., CHESEBRO-WHITMAN
...Potter Mfg. Co. v. A. B. Meyer & Co., 171 Ind. 513, 86 N.E. 837 (Sup.Ct.1909); cf. Timber Structures v. C.W.S. Grinding & Machine Wks., 191 Or. 231, 229 P.2d 623, 25 A.L.R.2d 1358 (Sup.Ct.1951); Mann v. Schnarr, 228 Ind. 654, 95 N.E.2d 138 Plaintiff's charge being for a service which was no......