Willard v. Finch

• Decision Date: 14 May 1923
• Docket Number: 11228.
• Citation: 117 S.E. 818,125 S.C. 32
• Parties: WILLARD ET AL. v. FINCH ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

117 S.E. 818

125 S.C. 32

WILLARD ET AL. v. FINCH ET AL.

No. 11228.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 14, 1923

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; T. S Sease, Judge.

Suit by C. R. Willard and others, partners under the firm name of the Willard-Boggs Company, against W. T. Finch, Frank Hodges, S P. Tinsley, and others. From a decree for defendant Hodges defendant Tinsley appeals. Affirmed.

De Pass & Wrightson, of Spartanburg, for appellant.

Blackwood Lyles, Daniel & Drummond, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

MARION J.

This is the third appeal (former appeals reported in 113 S.E. 302, and 116 S.E. 96) arising out of a proceeding brought by the plaintiffs to establish and foreclose a mechanic's lien against the New Finch Hotel property in the city of Spartanburg. The questions raised are whether the defendant S. P. Tinsley, the appellant here, is entitled to a lien, and, if so, whether such lien is prior to either of three mortgage liens acquired by the defendant Frank Hodges, respondent.

The lien claimed by the appellant, S. P. Tinsley, is for services, of the alleged value of $10,000, rendered by him as architect in drawing plans and specifications and for supervising the erection, construction, and alteration of the building in question. He further contends that the respondent, Frank Hodges, the mortgagee, had notice, either actual or constructive, of claimant's lien before either of the mortgages from Finch to Hodges was given. The master found, in substance, that the only services rendered by Tinsley for which he was entitled to compensation consisted in the drawing of the plans and specifications for the hotel buildings, which plans were drawn in 1916, about three years before building operations were commenced. The value of these services was fixed by the master at $6,000, for which sum Tinsley's claim was allowed. The effect of this finding was to deny Tinsley's claim to a lien, which was predicated upon the contention that his services in supervising the construction of the building had continued up to October, 1921. The circuit judge approved the master's finding, and further found that "the testimony furnishes no basis for a holding that the defendant Hodges had any notice of the claims of Tinsley and the Pickens Roofing Company, or of facts imposing on him the duty of inquiring of them as to any unpaid claims."

In disposing of the appeal of the Pickens...