Meyers Lumber Co. v. Tompkins

Two adjoining lot owners made separate contracts for .the erection of buildings upon tbeir adjoining lots. When erected, the two buildings were so connected as to appear as one. The defendant was the owner of the smaller building, which comprised one third of the entire structure. The contractor failed to pay for the material bought by him of the plaintiff, who filed one lien against both lots and the buildings thereon. This court in the case of Meyer Lumber Co. v. Trygstad, 22 N. D. 558, 134 N. W. 714, held such lien void. Plaintiff thereafter filed separate liens against the buildings. Held:— Piling of void lien — not such election of remedies as to preclude filing proper lien. 1. That the filing of the void lien was not such an election of remedies as precludes the filing of the proper liens thereafter. Notices to landowner — sufficiency of. 2. That the notices to the landowners set forth in the opinion are sufficient as between the parties to this action. Materials furnished — pleading — allegations — sufficiency. 3. The allegation that one third of the material was furnished for the defendant’s building, coupled with an itemized statement of the material furnished for both buildings, is sufficient to support the lien. 4. Point four is covered by the third paragraph of the opinion.

Appeal from tbe District Court of Ward County, K. F. Leighton, J. In some states there is- a distinction between tbe terms “subcontractor” and “materialman.” Tbis is not true in tbis state. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6250. A direct lien is given to tbe subcontractor. Robertson Lumber Co. v. State Bank, 14 N. D. 515, 105 N. W. 119; Langworthy Lumber Co. v. Hunt, 19 N. D. 436, 122. N. W. 865. It is the furnishing of the materials for the purpose of the construction, and tbe good faith delivery that controls and gives the lien right. Sehlosser v. Moores, 16 N. D. 185, 112 N. W. 19; Central Lumber Co. v. Braddock Land & Granite Co. 84 Ark. 560, 105 S. W. 583, 13 Ann. Cas. 11; 27 Cye. 47, note 67, and note p. 758; Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Leary, 25 S. D. 256, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 746, 126 N. W. 271, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 928. One who furnishes materials to a contractor who has separate contracts with tbe different owners has no right to a joint lien against all the property of the different owners into whose building his material went, but must claim and file a separate lien against tbe property of each of such owners. Meyer Lumber Co. v. Trygstad, 22 N. D. 558, 134 N. W. 714. In such cases an apportionment may be made. Kinney v. Mathias, 81 Minn. 64, 83 N. W. 497; Davis v. Parr, 13 Pa. 167; Harper v. Keely, 17 Pa. 234; Gordon v. Norton, 186 Pa. 168, 40 Atl. 312; Edwards v. Edwards, 24 Ohio St. 403; Sexton v. Weaver, 141 Mass. 273, 6 N..E. 367; Halsted & H. Co. v. Arick, 76 Conn. 382, 56 Atl. 628; Ballou ▼. Black, 17 Neb. 389, 23 N. W. 3, 21 Neb. 131, 31 N. W. 673; Sbaw v. Thompson, 105 Mass. 315; Hannon v. Logan, 14 Mo. App. 33; Byrd v. Cochran, 39 Neb. 109, 58 N. W. 127; Hines v. Coekran, 44 Neb. 12, 62 N. W. 299; Garner v. Van Patten, 20 Htah, 342, 58 Pac. 684; Hayden v. Logan, 9 Mo. App. 492; Springer Land Asso. v. Ford, 168 U. S. 513, 42 L. ed. 562, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 170; Lehmer y. Horton, 67 Neb. 574, 93 N. W. 964, 2 Ann. Cas. 685; Bowman Lumber Co. y. Newton, 72 Iowa, 90, 33 N. W. 377; Stoltze v. Hurd, 20 N. D. 412, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1219, 128 N. W. 115, Ann. Cas. 19120, 871; 34 Century Dig. Mechanics* Liens, 178-182, 259, 315, 320, 322; 13 Decen. Dig. Mechanics’ Liens, 130, 149, 183 and corresponding sections in Am. Dig. Key number series. 27 Cyc. 131, 224, 226. The notices served were amply sufficient to satisfy the law. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6237. The purpose of the notice required is to enable the owner to take all necessary steps for his own protection against the possibility of having to pay twice for the same improvement. Gilman v. Gard, 29 Ind. 291; Henry v. Plitt, 84 Mo. 237; Bambrick v. King, 59 Mo. App. 284; 27 Cyc. 110, 118; Fidelity Storage Corp. v. Trussed Concrete Steel Co. 35 App. D. C. 1, 20 Ann. Cas. 1157; Faulkner v. Bridget, 110 Mo. App. 377, 86 S. W. 483. The plaintiff once elected as to its remedy; it had knowledge of the facts as to coexistent remedial rights, inconsistent and irrevocable; and such election is a bar to any action based upon a remedial right inconsistent with that asserted by such -election. 15 Cyc. 262. The Pennsylvania rule, which gives a direct lien to the subcontractor, does not obtain in this state. It is not the contract between the material-man and the contractor, but the contract between the owner of the property and the contractor, that controls. Meyer Lumber Co. v„ Trygstad, 22 N. D. 558, 134 N. W. 714; Beach v. Stamper, 44 Or. 4, 102 Am. St. Rep. 597, 74 Pac. 209; Larkins v. Blakeman, 42 Conn. 292. The right to a mechanics’ lien exists by virtue of the statute; and to successfully claim and maintain such right, substantial compliance at every step, with the statute, must be shown. Stoltz v. Hurd, 20 N. D. 412, 30 L.E.A.(N.S.) 1219, 128 N. W. 115, Ann. Gas. 19120, 871. Where lienable and nonlienable articles are indiscriminately intermingled in one lien claim, the lien cannot stand. McClain v. Hntton Continental Bldg. & Loan Asso. 131 Cal. 140, 61 Pac. 274, 63 Pac. 182, 622; J. E. G-reilick Co. v. Taylor, 143 Mich. 704, 107 N. W. 712; Bradely v. Gaghan, 208 Pa. 511, 57 Atl. 985; Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Or. 150, 44 Pac. 393; Dalles Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Wasco Woolen Mfg. Co. 3 Or. 527; Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Or. 529, 16 Pac. 407; Williams v. Toledo Coal Co. 25 Or. 426, 42 Am. St. Rep. 799, 36 Pac. 159; 2 Jones, Liens, 1409, 1419. It is the duty of materialmen dealing with contractors and furnishing them.with materials, to ascertain and know the nature of the contract between the property owner and the contractor, and to take notice of the authority of, and the limitations placed upon, such contractor. Andrews v. Kneeland, 6 Cow. 354; Hill v. Bowers, 45 Kan. 592, 26 Pac. 13; Kneeland, Mechanics’ Liens, 87; Bottomly v. Grace Church, 2 Cal. 90; Houghton v. Blake, 5 Cal. 240; Rogers v. Currier, 13 Gray, 129; Chapin v. Persse & B. Paper Works, 30 Conn. 461, 79 Am. Dec. 263. In such cases as this one, no apportionment can possibly be made. No lien can attach unless the articles are lienable, can be identified, and actually went into the improvement. Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angeles Traction Co. 141 Cal. 30, 74 Pac. 357; Houghton v. Blake, 5 Cal. 240; Patent Brick Co. v. Moore, 75 Cal. 211, 16 Pac.-890; Silvester v. Coe, Quartz Mine Co. 80 Cal. 513, 22 Pac. 217; Bewick v. Muir, 83 Cal. 373, 23 Pac. 390; John A. Roebling Sons Co. v. Bear Valley Irrig. Co. 99 Cal. 490, 34 Pac. 80; Hamilton v. Delhi Min. Co. 118 Cal. 153, 50 Pac. 378; Gordon Hardware Co. v. San Erancisco & S. R. Co. 3 Cal. Hnrep. 140, 22 Pac. 406, 86 Cal. 620, 25 Pac. 125; Allen v. Elwert, 29 Or. 428, 44 Pae. 823, 48 Pac. 54; Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 Mo. 271.