Moore v. Jackson

Lien of Mechanics and Matebiad Men.—If a person enters into the possession of a house and lot with the consent of the owner, and makes repairs on the house by the permission of the owner, under a parol agreement with the owner to pay for such repairs, and to purchase the property, the mechanics and material men who furnish the , materials and do the work, can enforce a lien on the premises for their ' labor and materials, even if the person who makes the repairs does not effect a purchase. Idbh.—In such case the person who makes the repairs is the agent of the owner, and the owner’s estate is hound by the lien.

Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. In June, 1872, defendant J. P. Jackson was the owner of a house and lot in the city of Stockton. One Charles Whale informed Jackson that defendant Moulton proposed to purchase the house and lot, and to repair the house and live in it; and Jackson answered that he could purchase it and do as he pleased with it, and they would not differ as to the price. Whale reported this conversation to Moulton, who thereupon entered into possession of the premises, and commenced making repairs thereon. Moulton paid no rent to Jackson, but remained in possession of the premises. Jackson saw the building on the 13th of October, 1872, after all the repairs had been completed, except a half a day’s painting, but before any liens had been filed. The repairs, except the half day’s painting, were finished September 18, 1872. Moulton employed Whale to repair the house, and, in making repairs, lumber and other materials were purchased from the plaintiffs of the value of five hundred and seventy-eight dollars and eighty-eight cents. The repairs were made during July, August and September, 1872. Jackson did not give a notice that he would not be responsible for the repairs. The lien was filed October 31, 1872. Moulton did not purchase the property, and failed to pay the mechanics and material men, and they filed liens in the Recorder’s office, under the Mechanics’ Lien Law, and this action was commenced to enforce the plaintiffs’ lien. The defendants, other than Jackson and Moulton, were lien-holders, who had furnished materials to, or performed work for Moulton, in the work of repairs. The Court below enforced the liens, and the defendant Jackson appealed.