West v. Dreher

• Decision Date: 02 April 1920
• Docket Number: No. 10326.,10326.
• Parties: WEST et al. v. DREHER et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

73 Ind.App. 133

126 N.E. 688

WEST et al.

v.DREHER et al.

No. 10326.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

April 2, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Steuben County; Dan M. Link, Judge.

Action by Charles A. West and others against George A. Dreher and others. From a judgment for insufficient relief, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, with instructions.

J. Maxwell Life, of Auburn, for appellants.

Bratton & Heckenlively, of Angola, for appellees.

REMY, P. J.

On November 27, 1914, appellee Dreher, being the owner in fee simple of two certain contiguous lots in the town of Pleasant Lake, mortgaged the same to appellee First State Bank to secure the payment of certain promissory notes. On August 1, 1915, said appellee Dreher entered into a contract with appellants, by the terms of which contract appellants agreed to furnish certain materials and to do certain work in and about the construction of two dwelling houses which said appellee Dreher was at the time erecting on said lots. In accordance with said contract, the materials were furnished and the work done by appellants, but the agreed consideration therefor was not fully paid; and appellants, to secure the payment of the balance due them, filed a written notice of their intention to hold a mechanic's lien on both of said lots for the amount of $250. The said notice was filed within 60 days after the labor was furnished and the work done, and was recordedas required by law. Later, and within the time fixed by the statute, this suit was commenced against appellee Dreher and others interested, including said First State Bank, whose mortgage on said lots remained unsatisfied.

By a special finding, the trial court found the above facts, and by conclusions of law found that appellants were entitled to a judgment against appellee Dreher for the amount due them; but found that appellants were not entitled to a foreclosure of their lien which the court held to be “void and invalid as upon the real estate therein described.”

[1] The question involved in this appeal is: Where a contractor, under a single contract, has furnished materials and performed labor in the construction of two separate dwelling houses, one house on each of two contiguous lots, the labor and materials having gone indiscriminately into the construction of both houses, is such contractor, under section 8295 Burns 1914, as amended by the act of 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 106), entitled, by a single notice, to a lien on both houses and lots? The question must be answered in the affirmative.

[2] It has many times been held, and is the law in this state, that, although mechanics' lien statutes must be strictly construed in determining the persons entitled to such liens, nevertheless such statutes, being remedial in character, must be liberally construed in favor of those entitled to their benefits. McNamee v. Rauck, 128 Ind. 59, 27 N. E. 423;Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Baertz, 36 Ind. App. 408, 74 N. E. 51;Cline v. Indianapolis, etc., Co., 117 N. E. 509.

Substantially the same question here presented was before the United States Supreme Court in an appeal from the...