Warren v. Quade

• Decision Date: 24 February 1892
• Citation: 29 P. 827,3 Wash. 750
• Parties: WARREN ET AL. v. QUADE ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

29 P. 827

3 Wash. 750

WARREN ET AL. v. QUADE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 24, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; FRANK ALLYN, Judge.

Action by W. G. Warren and E. J. Hines, partners doing business under the firm name of Warren & Hines, against Otto Quade and others, to foreclose a mechanic's lien. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. Reversed, with directions to dismiss the action.

H W. Lueders, for appellants.

O'Brien & Hedger, for respondents.

HOYT J.

This action was brought to foreclose a lien for work done and materials furnished in the erection of a certain store building owned by defendant Otto Quade, and situated on certain lots in the city of Tacoma. The work was done and the materials furnished under a contract made with the firm of Moore & Co., which was alleged in the complaint to be the contractor for the erection of the building. Numerous questions are presented by the record, and have been argued by counsel; but the view which we take makes it unnecessary that we should consider any of them, excepting those relating to the sufficiency of the lien notice. The said notice of lien is substantially as follows: "Notice is hereby given that Wm. G. Warren and E. J. Hines, of Pierce county, state of Washington, claims a lien upon lots numbers twenty-eight (28) and twenty-nine, (29,) in block number seven hundred and nine, (709,) in the city of Tacoma, county of Pierce, Territory of Washington, for labor performed upon and assistance rendered in doing tinning and ironwork. That the name of the owner or reputed owner is Otto Quade. That Messrs. Moore & Co. employed said Warren & Hines to perform such labor and render such assistance upon the following terms and conditions, to wit: The said Moore & Co. agreed to pay the said Warren & Hines for such labor and assistance in putting on and doing the work and furnishing the material for tinning and ironwork the sum of four hundred and sixty-five dollars. That said contract has been faithfully performed and fully complied with on the part of said Warren & Hines who performed labor upon and assisted in tinning and ironwork according to their contract aforesaid. That, for extra work claimants demand $12.35. That said labor and assistance were so performed and rendered upon said building aforesaid between the 15th day of July, 1889, and the 25th day of August; and the rendition of said services was closed on the 25th day of August, and ninety days have not elapsed since that time. That the amount of claimant's demand for said services is four hundred and seventy-seven 35-100 dollars. That no part thereof has been paid, except three hundred dollars; and there is now due and remaining unpaid thereon, after deducting all just credits and offsets, the sum of one hundred and seventy-seven 35-100 dollars, in which amount he claims a lien upon said lots aforesaid,"-and, in our opinion, so failed to comply with the statute as to make it void and of no effect for the purposes for which it was given. The provisions of the statute providing what such lien notice shall contain are found in section 1667 of Hill's Code, and are, substantially, as follows: "Every person must *** file for record with the county auditor *** a claim containing a statement of his demand, after deducting all just credits and offsets, with the name of the owner or reputed owner, if known, and also the name of the person by whom he was employed or to whom he furnished the materials, with a statement of the terms and conditions of the contract, if any, and also a description of the property to be charged with the lien, sufficient for identification." From this it will be seen that one of the requisites of the notice is that the property to be charged should be described. This...