Washington Rock Plaster Co. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 29 December 1894
• Citation: 39 P. 115,10 Wash. 445
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WASHINGTON ROCK-PLASTER CO. v. JOHNSON ET AL. (BANK OF EVERETT, INTERVENER. WHEELER, OSGOOD & CO. v. SAME (BANK OF EVERETT ET AL., INTERVENERS.

39 P. 115

10 Wash. 445

WASHINGTON ROCK-PLASTER CO. v. JOHNSON ET AL. (BANK OF EVERETT, INTERVENER.

WHEELER, OSGOOD & CO. v. SAME (BANK OF EVERETT ET AL., INTERVENERS.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 29, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county.

Action by the Washington Rock-Plaster Company against August Johnson and Amelia Johnson, and one by Wheeler, Osgood & Co. against the same and other parties. The Bank of Everett and others intervened, and the actions were consolidated. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and interveners, defendants Johnson appeal. Affirmed.

Delaney & Gamel, for appellants.

Black &amp Edwards for appellees Mitchel Land & Imp. Co., M. O. Tibbits and Kronnick & Parsons.

Hudson & Holt and Miller & Roscoe, for appellees Wheeler, Osgood &amp Co.

HOYT J.

This is an appeal from a decree, in a consolidated case, for the foreclosure of certain liens upon the property of the appellants. The claim of the plaintiff the Washington Rock-Plaster Company is attacked upon two grounds,-one, that the work for which the lien was claimed was not fully completed; the other, that it was unskillfully done, and therefore of less value than contemplated. The proofs upon these questions were not very satisfactory, but were sufficient to sustain the decree, as this court will not reverse a finding of the superior court unless there was a substantial failure of proof to support it. The lien of the plaintiff Wheeler, Osgood & Co. is also attacked upon two grounds,-one, that the terms and conditions of the contract were not sufficiently set out in the notice; and the other that the husband alone was named as the owner of the property. In our opinion, the statement of the contract was sufficient, under the rules announced by the decisions of this court cited by appellants. In the cases so cited, the statement of the contract in the lien notice under consideration was in some respects similar to the one in the case at bar, but did not contain, as did this one, any sufficient reference to a bill of items showing in detail all the materials furnished under the contract. The paper title was in the name of the husband, and knowledge of the fact that he had a wife was not so brought home to the plaintiff as to make it necessary that it should name her as one of the owners of the property. Besides, the necessity of making her a party to the lien notice in any case where the record title is in the husband alone may well be doubted. The object of the notice is to...