UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY SUPPLEMENT TO BLOOM'S MECHANICS' LIENS ANL> BUILDING CONTRACTS WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICS' LIEN LAW AS AMENDED IN 1911 FULLY ANNOTATED BY CROSS-REFERENCES BY S. BLOOM OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAR SAN FRANCISCO BENDER-MOSS COMPANY LAW PUBLISHERS AND BOOKSELLERS 1912 COPYRIGHT, 1912 BY S. BLOOM T WILLIAMS PRINTING COMPANY lNtlBPFM>FNT PRESS ROOM PART I. SUBSTANTIVE LAW, OR PRIMARY RIGHTS. u CHAPTER I. HISTORY, SPIRIT, NATURE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW. 1. Introductory. Owing to the large number of cases decided during the past two years in the various courts, the change of attitude assumed by some of them towards the statute, the complete revision of the statute in at least one of the states considered in the Treatise, and for other rea- sons, it has been deemed expedient to issue this Supplement. 2. General divisions of subject. California Statute dis- tinguished. Additional matter to foot-note 4. 1 3. Questions raised by the decisions. Additional matter to subdivision 3. 2 4. Historical. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 3 1 California. While the general division of subjects given in the text of the Treatise is applicable to the new Act of May, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts., 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.), the new statute is much clearer in its division of the subjects or work for which a lien is given. 2 California. The new Act of May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts., 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.) attempts a statutory statement regarding the nature of the lien. See Supplement, 10, post. 3 Unknown to common law: Oklahoma. Christy v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl. March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 742; Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214. Or equity jurisprudence: California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Hig- gins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Bloom's Sup. 1 4, 4a MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 7. 4 4a. Constitutional Liens. While in nearly all of the states mechanics' liens are created by act of the legislature, in a few jurisdictions some of these liens are more properly the creations of the state constitutions, as in Texas and California ; and it is only in a broad sense that apart from the statute providing for the enforcement of the same, such constitutional mandatory liens may be denominated statu- tory liens. Furthermore, in California, for instance, as already shown, 5 the statute provides for liens more extens- ive in character than the constitution grants. 6 The more recent decisions of the California Supreme Court, it is said, recognize the force of the constitutional declaration of the right to such liens. 7 See Pratt v. Tudor, 14 Texas 39; Shields v. Morrow, -51 Texas 393. 4 I r<-:il lire of local li-i; i l:i i i..n : California. Davis v. Treacy, 8 Cat. App. 395, 97 Pac. Rep. 78 (hear- ing by Supreme Court denied); Holt Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 264, 271. 97 Pac. Rep. 516: D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621. 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 475. \rkiinxn*. See Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 568. KHIIMIIM. Potter v. Conley (Kan., January 7, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 608. 609. Mlnnmota. See Toledo N. Works v. Bernheimer, 8 Minn. 118 (Gil. 92). Nevada. Tonopah L. Co. v. Nevada A. Co., 30 Nev. 445, 97 Pac. Rep. 636. 639; Porteous D. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 380, 91 Pac. Rep. 135. New Mexico. Burton-Lingo Co. v. Patton (N. M.. February 28, 1910), 107 Pac. Rep. 679, 680. Oklahoma. Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409, 411; Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547; Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214; Christy v. Union O. & Q. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 742. Orfgom. Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Orcg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895. 898. Utah. Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah. June 12, 1909). 103 Pac. Rep. 254. 257. \Vahlnicton. Crane Co. v. Aue H. Co. (Wash., December 20, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 430, 432; Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 102 Pac. Rep. 766. Treatise, 28. ante. e See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 509, 97 Pac. Rep. 216 (hearing by Supreme Court denied); s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. See also Spinney v. Griffith, 98 Cal. 149, 32 Pac. Rep. 974. 7 Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 509, 97 Pac. Rep. 216 (hearing by Supreme Court denied); s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. 3 SCOPE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW. S 5.7 5. Evolution of California mechanics' lien law. Additional matter to foot-note II. 8 6. Spirit of the law. Additional matter to Oregon foot-note 14. 9 7. Theory of the mechanics ' lien law. It has been said in a recent case that the underlying principle of the entire theory of the mechanics' lien law is estoppel. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 15. 11 Additional matter to foot-note 16. 12 Rep. 218; citing Hampton v. Christensen, 148 Gal. 729, 737, 84 Pac. Rep. 200; Hughes Bros. v. Hoover, 3 Cal. App. 145, 150, 84 Pac. Rep. 681. 8 Utah. Evolution of statute. The mechanics' lien law of Utah, in substantially its present form, was adopted in 1894 (laws 1894, p. 44, c. 41). The lien act consisted of 16 sections and contained the whole law upon the subject of mechanics' liens. In 1898, when the laws of the state were revised, and, to some extent, recast, this act was made Chapter I, tit. 39, of the Revised Statutes of 1898. The phraseology of the law was changed somewhat, and the different sections as originally numbered were, in many respects, changed, so that Chapter I aforesaid is composed of 28, instead of 16 sections. Chapter I Is composed of 1372 to 1399 inclusive in the Revised Statutes of 1898, and these sections retain the same numbering in the Compiled Laws of 1907. The original act provided for liens for labor and material upon almost every kind of improvement; but, in doing so, neither the matters for which liens were created nor the property upon which liens were given were mentioned in the same section. From the wording of the different sections it is, however, made apparent that sometimes some of the provisions of the particular section were intended to apply to the matters set forth in that section only, while it is equally apparent that other provisions of the same section were intended to apply to the act as a whole: Park City M. Co. v. Corn- stock S. M. Co. (Utah, June 12, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 258. 9 Oregon. Statutory privilege: Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079, s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081, s. c. 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 10 California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 333, 111 Pac. Rep. 9 (on hearing in the Supreme Court); s. c., 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. 11 California. See Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 486, 94 Pac. Rep. 73. But see, criticising this case generally, Robison v Mitchell (Cal. Sup., March 20, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 988. Nevada. Porteous Dec. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 380, 91 Pac. Rep. 135; Tonopah L. Co. v. Nevada A. Co., 30 Nev. 445, 97 Pac. Rep. 636, 639. 12 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. Idaho. Naylor & Nowlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 829; s. c. 96 Pac. Rep. 573; Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Idaho 551, 99 Pac. Rep. 98, 101 (as to Sess. Laws 1899, p. 148). 7,8 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 17. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 18. 14 Additional matter 4;o foot-note 19. 15 8. A favored lien. While the mechanics' lien is favored in the law, yet it is for the legislature to determine the method by which the lien can be enforced; and the courts are not at liberty to disregard any statutory requirement. 16 Additional matter to foot-note 23. 17 Kao*an. See Robert Oarrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 180. . Montana. See Smallhouse v. Kentucky M. G. & S. M. Co., 2 Mont. 443, 445. Oklahoma. The mechanics' lien law was enacted for the protec- tion of those furnishing' material for and performing labor on the building and not for the benefit of him who has the building con- structed: Crutcher v. Block, 19 Okl. 246, 91 Pac. Rep. 897. Oregon. See Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 26, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 454; Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg.. November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, 897. is California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 464, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. Montana. See Smallhouse v. Kentucky M. G. & S. M. Co., 2 Mont. 443, 445. Oregon. See Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. .(Oreg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, 897. 14 New Mexico. Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 605. is California. Principle underlying; Dore v. Sellers. The principle upon which the decision in the case of Dore v. Sellers, 27 Cal. 588, was decided, under the Act of 1862, has no application to the law as It existed in California before the Act of May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.), and was based upon a different theory, namely, that the lien was not granted because the owner's property was benefited, but because claimant furnished labor or materials for the contractor, to whom the law granted a lien; and that there was no lien in the subclaimants independently of the contractor, and that they obtained their liens not as principals, though entitled to be first paid out of the moneys becoming due under the contract (upon the principle of subrogation): Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 776. Idaho. See Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Idaho 551, 99 Pac. Rep. 98, 100. Kannai. See Robert Garrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179. 180. New Mexico. Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 605. ie California. Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 486. 94 Pac. Rep. 773. See criticising this case generally, Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup., March 20, 1911). 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 988. IT California. No lien for peeling bark under {3052 Civ. Code: Quish v. Hill, 154 Cal. 748, 99 Pac. Rep. 204. SCOPE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW. 9. General nature of lien. Additional matter to foot-note 24. 18 i9-13 10. General classification of liens of this character. Additional matter to foot-note 25. 19 11. Another classification. Additional matter to foot-note 26. 20 12. The classification adopted herein. 21 13. The same. Contractual relation between owner and original contractor. The new statute of California 22 expressly states that a direct lien is given to subclaimants ; but there are expressions in the same section which render it more than doubtful whether the new law does not partake of the dual nature of the statute which it superseded. In other Washington. Difficulty of compliance with statute. The argument that It is difficult to comply with the statute should be addressed to the legislature; the courts are not responsible for the wisdom or expediency of the lien law: Finlay v. Tagholm (Wash., March 8, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 1083, 1084, s. c., Ill Pac. Rep. 782. is Oklahoma. Materialman's Hen under the statute is neither a Jus in re nor a jus ad rein, but simply a right to charge property affected by it with the payment of the particular debt in preference and priority to other debts, on compliance with the requisites of the statute; and it is inchoate until perfected by the rendition of a judg- ment in rem in the mode pointed out by the statute: Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547; Porter & Co. v. Miles, 67 Ala. 130. 19 Idaho. Direct lien. In this state, inf erentially a direct lien is given. Compare Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Repl 399. Kansas. Direct lien. In a majority of the states, as in Massachu- setts, the subcontractor is given a direct lien, as in Kansas; and the Kentucky statute, as well as that of Kansas, provides that he shall have a direct lien and not by way of subrogation: Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 838, 839. See Wichita S. & D. Co. V. Weil, 80 JCan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1004. Kentucky. See Kansas note, ante. New Mexico. A direct Hen is given to the subcontractor under Comp. L. 1897, 2216 et seq.: Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 342, 343; Nash v. Morgan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 344; Metz v. Romero (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 344. See Hobbs v. Spiegelberg, 3 N. M. (Gild.), 357, 5 Pac. Rep. 529. 20 See Supplement, 10, additional matter to foot-note 25 of Treatise, ante. 21 As to Direct and Indirect Lien: See this Supplement, 10 'ante. 22 Act of May 1, 1911 (Stats, and Amdts. 1911, p. 1313). 13-15 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Q words, it provides under certain conditions for a direct lien, and under others, for an indirect lien. The former statute, under certain circumstances, namely, the failure to file the statutory original contract as required by the law, gave a direct lien ; otherwise, an indirect lien. On the other hand, the new statute in so many words purports to give a direct lien; but apparently, upon the filing by the owner of the original contract and the statutory bond in the manner pro- vided, only an indirect lien is giveji. 23 The status of the lien upon the fund, under the garnish- ment proceeding by notice to the owner, still survives in the new act; and it remains to be seen what relation this lien will be found to bear to the others upon the property. 24 14. Same. Valid and void contract. Effect. In the last preceding section some suggestions have been made as to the nature of the lien provided for by the new statute of Cali- fornia, 25 and the effect of the void contract under the prior law, so far as relates to the extent of the lien with reference to the contractual liability of the owner, has been compared with the new enactment. Additional matter to foot-note 31. 26 15. Same. The object or thing to which the lien attaches. There can be no mechanics' lien on vacant lantf for the construction of a building which is destroyed by fire, earthquake, flood or other natural cause, without fault of the owner. 27 Additional matter to foot-note 32. 28 23 See new statute annotated in Appendix, post. 24 See Notice to owner, Treatise, 547 et seq., ante, and notes to same sections this Supplement, post. 25 Stats, and Am. Us. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 2 See Direct Lien, notes to 5 10, foot-note 25 ante, this Supplement. 27 California. See Watson v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 560, 564, 108 Pac. Rep. 48 (hearing in Supreme Court denied); Watson v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 566, 108 Pac. Rep. 60 (hearing in Supreme Court denied); Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 489, 99 Pac. Rep. 723 (hear- ing in Supreme Court denied). See, also, Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. 28 Arkansas. See Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214. 7 SCOPE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW. ^5 16. Same. Lien on structure separate from land. The rule is not uniform in all of the states as to whether a mechanic's lien may attach to the building separate and apart from the land upon which it is located. In some states the rule prevails that, where for any reason the lien can not attach to the land, it may attach to the building separate and apart therefrom. In other states the lien attaches only to the building, but it appears that in a majority of the states a lien upon the building separate and apart from the land is not recognized. The rule in each state is determined by specific provisions of its statute, or the construction of such statute by the courts of that state. In- those states where it is held that the lien may attach to the building separate from the land, although the statute does not specifically so direct, the rule has re- sulted from construction of provisions in statutes of such state authorizing a sale of the building or improvement separate and apart from the land and a removal of the same from the land by the purchaser. 29 Colorado. Building as fixture. See Hughes v. Kershow, 42 Colo. 210, 93 Pac. Rep. 1116. Indian Territory. See Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214. Nebraska. Compare Western C. M. Co. v. Leavenworth, 52 Neb. 418, 72 N. W. Rep. 592. New Mexico. See Burton-Lingo Co. v. Patton (N. M., February 28, 1910), 107 Pac. Rep. 679, 682, 683. Oklahoma. See Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214. Utah. Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah, June 19, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. 29 Oklahoma. Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214. The Oklahoma statute contains no provision creating in terms a lien upon the improvements separate and apart from the realty; nor does it contain any provision authorizing a foreclosure of the lien upon such improvements separate and apart from the land when for any reason the lien can not attach to the land, or that authorizes the vendee to remove such improvements after purchase. This statute, put in force In the Indian Territory by an act of Congress (Act May 2, 1890, c. 182, 31, 26 Stat. 81) was adopted from the state of Arkansas, where it had received construction by the highest appel- late court of that state before its adoption (Cotton v. Penzel, 44 Ark. 484; Galbreath, Stewart & Co. v. Davidson, 25 Ark. 490, 99 Am. Dec. 233; McCullough v. Caldwell, 5 Ark. 237; in which cases it is held that it was the design that the lien should attach to real property and not to merely personal property). 16-18 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. g Additional matter to foot-note 35. 30 Additional matter to foot-note 38. 31 17. Same. Lien on the fund. 32 18. The kinship between statutes of the various states. Where a construction is given to a statute by the highest court of a state, and such statute is adopted by another state, the courts of the latter will presume that the legislature intended such construction to be placed upon the statute, and it will be followed by the courts in applying the statute, and such construction is adopted with the statute and forms a part of it, 33 unless it appears that the decision of the for- eign court is based on unsound reasoning, or the application of the decision would lead to the denial of a substantial right. 34 Additional matter to foot-note 41. 35 The decisions In the following: cases are based upon such statutory provisions, referred to in the text. Michigan. Jossman v. Rice, 121 Mich, 270, 80 N. W. Rep. 25, 80 Am. St. Rep. 493. Montana. Grand Opera House v. Magruire, 14 Mont. 558, 37 Pac. Rep. 607. North Dakota. Mahon v. Surerus, 9 N. D. 57, 81 N. W. Rep. 64. so Nebraska. Compare Western C. M. Co. v. Leavenworth, 52 Neb. 418, 72 N. W. Rep. 592. I mil. Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah, June 19, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. 31 California. See John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328. 332, 111 Pac. Rep. 9 (on hearing: in the Supreme Court), s. c., Court of Appeals, 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. ' 32 See ${ 550 et seq., post, and notes. 33 Montana. McQueeney v. Toomey, 36 Mont. 282, 92 Pac. Rep. 561, 122 Am. St. Rep. 358; State Sav. Bank v. Albertson, 39 Mont. 414, 102 Pac. Rep. 692; Deer Lodge County v. United States F. & G. Co. (Mont., Dec. 6, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 1060, 1064. Oklahoma. Jarrell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167, 168. 34 Montana. Deer Lodge County v. United States F. & G. Co. (Mont., Dec. 6, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 1060, 1064; State v. Mott, 29 Mont. 292, 74 Pac. Rep. 728. 33 Alaska. The Montana and Iowa statutes are practically the same as the Alaska statute: Copper River L. Co. v. Clark, 3 Alaska 635, 639. Sf 262-205. Carter's Alaska Code, although said to have been taken from the law of California of 1868, omits the specific provision of the California statute which gave a lien for the ordinary work of a miner in a mine; and it differs from the lien statutes of Oregon, California, Nevada and Colorado in that it limits the lien of a miner SCOPE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW. 19. General peculiarities of mechanics' liens. Additional matter to foot-note 42. 36 to the work done In the development or improvement of a mine: Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752. Arkansas. See Oklahoma, this note, post. California. See Alaska, this note, ante. Colorado. See Alaska, this note, ante. Indian Territory., See Oklahoma, this note, post. Iowa. See Alaska, this note, ante. Kansas. See Oklahoma, this note, post. Montana. See Alaska, this note, ante. Nevada. See Alaska, this note, ante. New Mexico. The case of Birmingham I. Foundry v. Glnreon S. Mfg. Co., 78 N. Y. 30, is under a statute more restrictive in its terms than the New Mexico statute, which is general and does not restrict the lien only to cases where materials are sold and delivered in New Mexico: Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 709. New York. See New Mexico, this note, ante. Oklahoma. 2869 Ind. T. Ann. St. was adopted from 4402 Mansf. Dig. Stat. of Arkansas: Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214, 215. But the mechanics' lien law of Oklahoma (Code Civ. Proc., 619 et seq.; Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903, 4817 et seq.), was taken from the mechanics' lien law of Kansas: Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214, 215; Bloch v. Pearson, 19 Okl., 422, 91 Pac. Rep. 714. Oregon. See Alaska, this note, ante. 36 Mechanics' lien creature of statute: Arkansas. Murray V. Rapley, 30 Ark. 568. ' California. Holt Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 271, 97 Pac. Rep. 516; D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 475; Davis v. Treacy, 8 Cal. App. 395, 97 Pac. Rep. 78 (hearing denied by Supreme Court) ; Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 509, 97 Pac. Rep. 216 (hearing by Supreme Court denied), s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. Kansas. Potter v. Conley (Kan., January 7, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 608, 609. Minnesota. Toledo N. Works v. Bernheimer, 8 Minn. 118 (Gil. 92). Mississippi. See Eller's Admr. v. Elder, 51 Miss. 495. Nevada. Porteous Dec. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 380, 91 Pac. Rep. 135; Tonopah L. Co. v. Nevada A. Co., 30 Nev. 445, 97 Pac. Rep. 636, 639. New Mexico. Burton-Lingo Co. v. Patton (N. M., February 28, 1910), 107 Pac. Rep. 679, 680. Oklahoma. Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547; Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214; Christy v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 742; Peace- able Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409, 411. Oregon. Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, 898. Texas. Pratt v. Tudor, 14 Tex. 39; Shields v. Morrow, 51 Tex. 393. Utah. Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah, June 12, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 257. S ]9-21 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 43. 37 Additional matter to foot-note 44. 38 Additional matter -to foot-note 45. 39 Additional matter to foot-note 47. 40 20. Relation of lien to the debt. The debt created by furnishing materials or labor and the lien given therefor by the statute are two distinct matters; the former may be enforced as any other debt, while the lien exists only by the statute and must be enforced by such special proceeding as may be provided for that purpose. 41 Additional matter to foot-note 50. 42 21. Mechanic's lien and mortgage compared. Additional matter to foot-note 53. 43 Washington. Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 102 Pac. Rep. 766; Crane Co. v. Erie H. Co. (Wash., December 20, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 430, 432. \\ u.-oiixlii. See Bertheolot v. Parker, 43 Wis. 551. 37 Statute measure of right and mode of securing right I Minnesota. Toledo N. Works v. Bernheimer, 8 Minn. 118, (Gil. 92). Oklahoma. Christy v. Union O. & Q. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911). 114 Pac. Rep. 742. WiiMhlnKton. See Finley v. Tagholm (Wash., March 8, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 1083, s. c., Ill Pac. Rep. 782. 38 Statute rule of mode of enforcement: California. Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 486, 94 Pac. Rep. 773; McNiel v. Borland, 23 Cal. 149; Los Angeles P. B. Co. V. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. so Compliance with termn of xtatute: KIIIINIIM. Those claiming a lien must bring themselves clearly within the provisions of the law: Potter v. Conley (Kan., January 27, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 608, 609. 40 Inchoate Hen: \bi I. num. Porter & Co. v. Miles, 67 Ala. 130. California. See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. Nevada. Porteous Dec. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135, 136. Oklahoma. Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. 41 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 42 California. See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App, 505, 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. 43 Idaho. See Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 27. SCOPE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW. 8 21 22 Additional matter to foot-note 55. 44 22. Nature of action to foreclose lien. Additional matter to foot-note 57. 45 Additional matter to foot-note 58. 46 44 Idaho. Mechanic's Hen and mortgage. There is a very material difference between a mortgage lien and a mechanic's lien. The first is given by contract, and 'in many instances the debt secured may be practically as much as the value of the property, and in most all instances considerable time elapses before the maturing of the debt, in which case there is ample opportunity for property to depreciate in value. On the other hand, the mechanic's or laborer's lien is invol- untary on the part of the property owner, and arises by operation of law as an incident to the original contract. In every instance of a lien, however, the debt and obligation for which the lien is given is only so much as has been incurred by the creation or improvement of the property itself and the whole sum has gone to enhance the value of the property on which the lien is claimed. The time allowed for preferring the lien claim is so short that there is but little oppor- tunity for the property to so depreciate in value that it will not sell on the market for an amount equal to the claim for labor or material or both that has been furnished: Naylor & Nowlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho, 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 829, s. c., 96 Pac. Rep. 573. The foregoing was said with reference to stay bonds, and does not appear to touch upon all the essential differences between mortgages and mechanics' liens. 45 Action to foreclose equitable: Alaska. Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752, 756. Arkansas. See Oklahoma, this note, post. California. Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 7 Cal. App. 257, 94 Pac. Rep. 399; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Illinois. Tracy V. Rogers, 69 111. 662. Indian Territory. See Oklahoma, this note, post. Oklahoma. The lien may be enforced either in equity, or, accord- ing to the statute, in a suit at law, in Indian Territory: Jones v. Balsley '(Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 942, s. c. 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830; Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 569; Kizer L. Co. v. Mosely, 56 Ark. 544, 20 S. W. Rep. 409. Washington. Pacific L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash., November 23, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 869, 870. 46 Action in rent: California. See Los Angeles County v. Winans, 13 Cal. App. 234, 10.9 Pac. Rep. 640, 650. Federal. Heidritter v. Oil C. Co., 112 U. S. 294, 301, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 135, 138, 28 L. ed. 729. Idaho. The charge is purely in rem: Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nick- erson, 13 Idaho, 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 27. Montana. See Gassert v. Strong, 38 Mont. 18, 98 Pac. Rep. 497, 500 (mortgage, quasi in rem). Oklahoma. Jones v. Balsley, 111 Pac. Rep. 942, s. c. 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. 22-25 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 60. 47 23. Nature and scope of right conferred. Additional matter to foot-note 61. 48 24. Construction of mechanics '-lien statutes. Additional matter to foot-note 62. 49 25. Same. Confusion in the authorities. The law of interpretation relating to mechanics' lien statutes in Califor- nia, it is said, has recently been in a state of transition. 50 The courts declare, however, that they are not required to give a strained construction to the statute to enable persons to collect their debts from parties who never agreed to pay them and who never requested the performance of the work or delivery of the materials. 51 47 (. nriii-.li mi- nt proceeding on fund equitable: California. Goldtree v. City of San. Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 510, 97 Pac. Rep. 216 (hearing denied by Supreme Court), s. c. 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. 48 California. AM to assignment of right conferred by notice, see Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 216 (hearing by Supreme Court denied), s. c., 8 Cal. App. 612, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. Assignment of claim of lien on harvester under act of March 21, 1905, Stats. 1905, p. 618 (now 3061 Civ. Code); see Lemon v. Hubbard, 10 Cal. App. 471, 102 Pac. Rep. 554. Arlsona. See Harper v. Independence D. Co. (Ariz., April 2, 1910), 108 Pac. Rep. 701, 703. Oregon. Right to perfect logging lien under B. & C. Comp., St 5677- 5679, held personal, and can not be assigned: Alderson v. Lee, 52 Oreg. 92, 96 Pac. Rep. 234, 237. 40 Construction of statute of sister state by adoption of such statute: Montana. Deer Lodge County v. United States F. & Q. Co. (Mont., December 6, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 1060, 1064; McQueeney v. Toomey, 36 Mont. 282, 92 Pac. Rep. 561, 122 Am. St. Rep. 358; State Sav. Bank v. Albertson, 39 Mont. 414, 102 Pac. Rep. 692; State, v. Mott, 29 Mont. 292. 74 Pac. Rep. 728. Oklahoma. Jarrell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167, 168. See text and notes this Supplement, | 18, ante. Oregon. As to legislative construction of statute providing for Hen on coal mines, see Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 455; Portland R. L. & P. Co. v. Railroad Com. (Oreg., December 21, 1909), 105 Pac. Rep. 709. so California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524 (on petition for rehearing), 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. si California. Stelger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 703, 100 Pac. Rep. 714 (hearing in Supreme Court denied); Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 97 Pac. Rep. 419; 13 SCOPE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 63. 52 Additional matter to foot-note 65. 53 Additional matter to foot-note 66. 54 Hogan v. Bigler, 8 Cal. App. 71, 73, 96 Pac. Rep. 97 (hearing in Su- preme Court denied), quoting from Buell v. Brown, 131 Cal. 158, 63 Pac. Rep. 167. Nevada. There are certain plain requirements prescribed by the statute which are legally essential to the validity of every lien, and without which it can not be enforced. Whatever is made necessary to the existence of the lien must be performed or the attempt to create it will be futile. A substantial adherence to the terms of the statute in the notice of lien is indispensable: Porteous Dec. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135, 136. Oklahoma. In such case, the law should be couched in clear and unambiguous language: Christy v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 742. 52 Oregon. In derogation of the common law and can be estab- lished only by a plain compliance with the requirements of the statute: Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg., 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079, s. c. 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081, s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 53 Substantial compliance required: California. Davis v. Treacy, 8 Cal. App. 395, 97 Pac. Rep. 78 (hear- ing denied by Supreme Court). Kansas. Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 82 (as to claim of lien). Nevada. Porteous Dec. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135, 136. Oklahoma. Implications extending the operation of the lien law in favor of subcontractors are not favored. Parties claiming rights thereunder are required to show that they can bring themselves within the plain terms of the law and where they do not, they are excluded from its benefits: Christy v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac, Rep. 742. See also Shields V. Morrow, 51 Tex. 393; Ayers v. Revere, 25 N. J. Law, 474; Bertheolot v. Parker, 43 Wis. 551. 54 Liberal construction to effect objects and promote justice: California. Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 486, 94 Pac. Rep. 773. Federal. Alaska Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752, 755. Kansas. See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 82. Utah. See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah, June 12, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 257. Washington. Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729 (under Ballinger's Ann. Codes & Stat. 5917; Pierce's Code, 6119); Smythe v. Lance, 52 Wash. 560, 100 Pac. Rep. 995 "(under express provision of Ballinger's Ann. Codes & Stat., 5909; Pierce's Code, 6111); Lindley v. McGlauflin, 58 Wash. 636, 109 Pac. Rep. 118, s. c. 57 Wash. 581, 107 Pac. Rep. 355 (under Rem. & Bal. Code, 1147, as to number of claims of lien that may be filed). And see Finlay v. Tagholm (Wash., March 8, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 1083, s. c. Ill Pac. Rep. 782 (as to requirement of mailing duplicate statement). 25 27 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. ]_ Additional matter to foot-note 67. 55 Additional matter to foot-notes 68 and 69. 56 Additional matter to foot-note 70. 57 27. Same. Resume. Paragraph 2. Add : Where, however, there is a limitation as a part of the right, and not a mere provision for repose, the lien should be considered as conditionally perfected and the rule as to construction after perfection applicable only so far as the limitation may not be affected. 58 In interpreting the mechanics' lien law, it is not to be con- sidered as a general law relating to contracts and contractual relations, but a means provided whereby the laborer, me- chanic or material-man may make known his intention to exercise his constitutional right and enforce his lien. 59 The California mechanics' lien statute is intended to supply the means for the enforcement of liens provided for by the 65 Montana. See Lane v. Lane-Potter L. Co., 40 Mont. 541, 107 Pac. Rep. 898. Oregon. See Laughlin v. Connors, 54 Oreg. 184, 102 Pac. Rep. 793. 86 Remedial statute; liberally construed i Arlcona. See Murphy v. Brown (Ariz.), 100 Pac. Rep. 801 (con- struction of statute giving lien for rent). Federal. See Chauncey v. Dyke Bros., 55 C. C. A. 579, 119 Fed. 1 (Arkansas statute). Montana. See Smallhouse v. Kentucky & M. G. & S. M. Co., 2 Mont. 443. 445. Nevada. Porteous Dec. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135, 136. Oklahoma. Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 546. See Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409, 411. M Montana. The manner of perfecting a mechanic's lien consists of various steps, which are purely statutory: Neuman v. Grant, 36 Mont. 77, 92 Pac. Rep. 43 (quoting from McGlauflin v. Wormser, 28 Mont. 177, 72 Pac. Rep. 428, as set forth in note 69 to Treatise, ante). 58 Utah. The more modern Ieellon are practically harmonious in holding that where there has been a substantial compliance with the statute giving the lien, and the lien has in fact been established, the lien so established will not be defeated by mere technicalities or by nice distinctions: Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah, June 12, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 258; particularly, where the lien has been foreclosed, and the rights of third parties have intervened. Ibidem, citing this section of Treatise. See Lumber Co. v. Martin, 31 Utah 249, 87 Pac. Rep. 714. 59 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 703, 100 Pac. Rep. 714 (hearing in Supreme Court denied). 15 SCOPE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW. 27 constitution, 60 and will be construed with a view to accom- plish the constitutional purpose. In so far as the act affects the right to contract, it will be limited in its operation to the persons whom the constitution and statute intended to protect by giving a lien, and to such contracts of these per- sons as relate to and affect the lien. 61 Additional matter to foot-note 79. 62 GO California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Gal. App. 514, 524, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 509, 97 Pac. Rep. 216, s. c. 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac Rep. 218; Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, supra. 61 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Steiger T. C & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, supra. 62 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Wyoming. Construction of law passed by virtue of constitutional command, in the light of such command and consistent therewith, see Burton v. Union Pac. C. Co. (Wyo.), 107 Pac. Rep. 391. 28 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. CHAPTER II. CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS AND THE LAW APPLICABLE. 28. Constitutional Provisions creating the lien. The earlier cases decided after the adoption of the California constitution of 1879 failed to recognize distinctly the con- dition of the law relating to the mandatory liens provided for by that instrument. There was no special provision in the constitution of 1849, or the amendments thereof, for a mechanic's lien. The lien law existing before the amend- ment of the statute in 1911 l was enacted prior to the con- stitution of 1879 in its main features, and the lien, it is said, was therefore entirely a creature of statute. 2 It is claimed that, up to the change in the law of 1911, no new procedure had been provided, although there were numerous amendments of the statutory provisions contained in the code. 3 The phraseology of the law, which in all its provisions implied that the lien was of legislative creation, up to 1911, was not revised to meet the change caused by the adoption of the constitution of 1879, and is said to have been gram- matically, at any rate, out of harmony with the view that the right of lien was due to the constitutional provision. In the later cases the recognition of the constitutional or- igin of the right to the mandatory liens and the true rela- tion of the statute is much clearer than in the earlier de- cisions. 4 The construction of the constitutional provision is 1 Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 2 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 475. s California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, supra. See Ger- mania B. & L. Assoc. v. Wagner, 61 Cal. 349. 4 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 475: Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 508, 97 Pac. Rep. 216 (petition for hearing In Supreme Court denied); s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Hlgglns, 8 Cal. App. 514, 518, 519, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Hampton v. Christensen, 148 Cal. 72-9, 737, 84 Pac. Rep. 200, 203; Hughes Bros. v. CONSTITUTIONAL, ASPECTS LAW APPLICABLE. 28 swinging towards the interpretation given by the courts of Texas and other states having similar constitutional pro- visions. 5 The legislature, it is said in a recent case, has certainly gone as far in the protection of the owner by only seques- trating the final payment of twenty-five per cent of the con- tract price under the law, as it existed before the amend- ment of 1911, unconditionally to the payment of the lien claims, where the contract is valid, and in considering this a sufficient reservation to cover the full value of labor done and materials furnished for which the constitution provides a lien ; 6 although by the provision for notice to the owner it was in the power of the claimant to enlarge the fund so as to meet the obligation due to him. And it has been said that the constitutional provision is self -executing. 7 Additional matter to foot-note 2. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 4. 9 Additional matter to foot-note 7. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 8. 11 Additional matter to foot-note II. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 12. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 16. 14 Hoover, 3 Cal. App. 150, 84 Pac. Rep. 681; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 775; Barrett-Hicks Co. V. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 765; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub. nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; Miltimore v. Nofziger Bros. L. Co., 150 Cal. 790, 90 Pac. Rep. 114. 5 See 29, this Supplement, post. 6 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 765; s. c. 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c. sub. nom. Burnett V. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 7 California. Barrett-Hicks, Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 765; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub. nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 8 Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, supra. 9 Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, supra. 10 Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, supra; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Hig- gins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 519, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 11 California. D. L Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon,' 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 475. 12 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 475. is California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. .V. Solomon, supra. 14 California. Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 508, Bloom's Sup. 2 28a,29 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. }g .i 28a. Same. Application of constitutional provision to state and municipalities. Although no exception as to public and municipal property is made by the provision of the con- stitution of California, providing for mechanics' liens, 15 by reason of other constitutional provisions and public policy, it is not to be construed as extending to municipalities or the state, and as not warranting a lien upon public property ; but there is ample authority in the California decisions extending the power to the courts to render judgments against munici- palities enforcing an equitable lien, under the statute, upon an improvement fund, for the benefit of subcontractors and laborers who worked upon the improvement, for the con- struction of which the fund was provided. 16 29. Same. Operation of the constitution. As already suggested, 16a the more recent decisions of the supreme court recognize the force of the constitutional declaration of the mandatory liens. In view of the enactment of the amend- ments of 1911 to the California Code of Civil Procedure, and the reactionary tendency of the later decisions of that state towards the construction given to the constitutions of Texas and other states having similar constitutional provisions, a summary of such decisions is appended. 17 97 Pac. Rep. 216 (hearing In Supreme Court denied); s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. is California. 6, Art. XX, Constitution of California of 1879. 16 California. Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 510, 97 Pac. Rep. 216 (hearing in Supreme Court denied); s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512. See San Francisco G. Co. v. San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453; Zottman v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 96, 81 Am. Dec. 96; Spring Valley W. Works v. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286, 22 Pac. Rep. 910, 1046; 16 Am. St. Rep. 116; Contra Costa v. Breed, 139 Cal. 432, 73 Pac. Rep. 189; Mc- Conoughey v. Jackson, 101 Cal. 265, 35 Pac. Rep. 863, 40 Am. St. Rep. 53; Bates v. Santa Barbara, 90 Cal. 543, 27 Pac. Rep. 438. See { 29a, this Supplement, post. ia 19, note 42, and 28, this Supplement, ante. 17 i ..lint itutioit of Georgia. The constitution of Georgia provides that mechanics and laborers shall have a lien upon the property of their employers for labor performed or materials furnished, and the legislature shall provide for the summary enforcement of the same. Without any action on the part of the leglnlnture, the lien exists by virtue of the constitutional provision: Camp v. Mayer, 47 Ga. 414, 427. See, also, Love v. Cox, 68 Ga. 272; Langston v. Anderson, 69 Ga. 65: Allred v. Haile, 84 Ga. 570, 10 S. E. Rep. 1095; Stonewall Jackson S. & B. Assoc. v. McGruder, 43 Ga. 9; Georgia L. S. & B. Co. v. Dunlop, 108 Ga. 218; Tarver v. Fleming, 53 Ga. 297. J9 CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS LAW APPLICABLE. S 29 Claimants cannot be deprived of constitutional mandatory liens. Following the decisions of other states having similar constitutional provisions, it has been lately held that with- Constitution of North Carolina. "Every building built, rebuilt or improved shall be subject to a lien for, the payment of all debts con- tracted for work done on the same or materials furnished": Revisal of 1905, 2016, art. 14, 4. See Healey I. M. Co. v. Green (C. C., N. C.), 181 Fed. Rep. 890, 893. "The general assembly sha-11 provide by appropriate legislation for giving to mechanics and laborers an adequate lien upon the subject matter of their labor": Art. xiv, 4. See Brayhill v. Gaither, 119 N. C. 443. Constitution of Texas. "Artisans, mechanics, and material-men of every class shall have a lien upon the buildings and articles made or repaired by them, for the value of their labor done thereon, or thfe material furnished therefor; and the legislature shall provide by law for the speedy and efficient enforcement of said liens": -Art. 16, 37. Constitution is self-executing. The lien exists independently of any statutory provision by reason of this constitutional provision. It arises out of the transaction and can not be created by contract: Houston v. Myers, 88 Tex. 126, 129, 30 S. W. Rep. 912, 913; Warner E. Co. v. Maverick, 88 Tex. 489, 492; Johnson v. Amarillo I. Co. 88 Tex. 505, 511, 31 S. W. Rep. 503; Oriental H. Co. v. Griffiths, 88 Tex. 574, 583, 33 S. W. Rep. 652, 661; Powers L. Co. v. Wade, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 295, 298, 39 S. W. Rep. 160; June v. Doke, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 240, 80 S. W. Rep. 405; Bayless v. Standard S. & L. Assoc., 39 Tex. Civ. App. 353; Baldwin v. Polti, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 638; Strang v. Pray, 89 Tex. 525, 35 S. W. Rep. 1054; Berry v. McAdams, 93 Tex. 431, 55 S. W. Rep. 1112; Bassett v. Mills, 89 Tex. 162, 167, 34 S. W. Rep. 93, 95; Beneman v. Beaumont L. Co., 12 Tex. Civ. App. 517, 529, 34 S. W. Rep. 198; United States & M. T. Co. v. Western S. & Mfg. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 109 S. W. Rep. 377, 382; Beilharz v. Illingsworth (Tex. Civ. App.), 132 S. W. Rep. 106, 109; Howell v. McMurray L. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 132 S. W. Rep. 848; Panhandle T. & T. Co. v. Kellogg S. & S. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 132 S. W. Rep. 963, 965; Blakeney v. Nalle (Tex. Civ. App.), 101 S. W. Rep. 875. See, also, Implement Co. v. Electric L. Co., 74 Tex. 607, 2 S. W. Rep. 489; Trammell v. Mount, 68 Tex. 215, 4 S. W. Rep. 371; Sullivan v. Texas B. & C. Co., 94 Tex. 541, 63 S. W. Rep. 307; National Bank v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 95 Tex. 176, 66 S. W. Rep. 203; Guarantee S., L. & I. Co. v. Cash, 99 Tex. 555, 91 S. W. Rep. 782; Hord v. Owens, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 21, 48 S. W. Rep. 201; Waters-Pierce O. Co. v. United States & M. T. Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 397, 404. And see Finlay v. Tag- holm (Wash., March 8, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 1083; s. c., Ill Pac. Rep. 782, explaining certain Texas, cases above cited. A laborer's lien is not provided for by this constitutional provision: Partin v. Wallace (Tex. Civ. App.), 121 S. W. Rep. 515. The legislature is not prohibited from providing for liens in cases not mentioned in the constitutional provision, nor from making rea- sonable regulations for, and providing a method of, enforcing the liens provided for therein: Bassett v. Mills, 89 Tex. 162, 167, 34 S. W. Rep. 93, 95; Warner E. Co. v. Maverick, 88 Tex. 489, 493, 30 S. W. Rep. 437; Strang v. Pray, 89 Tex. 525, 528, 35 S. W. Rep. 1054, 1055, s. c. (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. Rep. 666. R 29 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 20 out constitutional authority the right to the lien provided for by the constitution can not be taken away by the legis- lature, either by legislation or lack of legislation. The last clause of the constitutional provision requires the legislature to provide by law for the speedy and efficient enforcement of the liens, the right to which is thereby guaranteed. The question whether or not under the circumstances of the case the section was self -executing was held immaterial, since the legislature in obedience thereto had provided a good and sufficient procedure whereby the lien may be declared and enforced against municipalities. 18 . Rights of claimants upon abandonment. The construction given to the provisions of the statute in California 19 in a recent case, 20 so far as it limits the right of recovery of claimants upon abandonment of the contract by the con- Nor from prescribing the time within which the steps necessary for the protection of the owner or purchaser of such property shall be taken, as a limitation upon the time for the enforcement of the lien, and such other thing's as pertain to the remedy: Strang v. Pray, 89 Tex. 525, 528, 35 S. W. Rep. 1054, 1055, s. c. (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. Rep. 666. And the legrlMlature may enact a law requiring; notice in writing 1 by the subcontractor to the owner, before the latter settles with the contractor: Berry v. McAdams, 93 Tex. 431, 55 S. W. Rep. 112. But the legislature has no power to affix to the constitutional lien conditions of forfeiture: Strang v. Pray, 89 Tex. 525, 528, 35 S. W. Rep. 1054, 1055, s. c. (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. Rep. 666. And the power to facilitate the enforcement of such lien neither includes nor implies the power to destroy it, or to hamper it by un- reasonable restrictions: Johnson v. Amarillo I. Co., 88 Tex. 505, 511, 31 S. W. Rep. 503. And where there In no quentlon of Innocent purchaser Involved, the constitutional lien is not lost by a failure to record the contract or bill of particulars, as directed by the statutes: Strang v. Pray, 89 Tex. 525. 528, 35 S. W. Rep. 1054, 1055, s. c. (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. Rep. 666. See June v. Doke, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 240, 245, 80 S. W. Rep. 405; Baldwin V. Polti, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 638; Beilharz v. Illingsworth (Tex. Civ. App.), 132 S. W. Rep. 106, 109; Farmers & M. N. Bank v. Taylor, 91 Tex. 78, 40 S. W. Rep. 876. 966; Padgitt v. Dallas B. & C. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 51 S. W. Rep. 529; Blakeney v. Nalle (Tex. Civ. App.), 101 S. W. Rep. 875. isGoldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505. 508, 97 Pac. Rep. 216 (petition for hearing in the Supreme Court denied); s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. See { 28a this Supplement, ante. 10 J 1200 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 20 Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 97 Pac. Rep. 152. 21 CONSTITUTIONAL, ASPECTS LAW APPLICABLE. 29-31 tractor, is not in violation of the constitutional provision recognizing the rights of mechanics and others to liens. 21 Additional matter to foot-note 16. 22 30. Raising the question of constitutionality. Additional matter to foot-note 18. 23 Additional matter to foot-note 19. 24 31. Constitutionality of lien statutes generally. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 21. 26 21 California. C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 141, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. 22 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 475. 23 California. C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 142, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. See Davidson v. Von Detten, 139 Cal. 467, 73 Pac. Rep. 189. 24 Idaho. See ex parte Gale, 14 Idaho, 761, 95 Pac. Rep. 679. 25 Montana. Logging lien. Constitutionality of Sess. Laws 1899, p. 126, Rev. Codes, 5819-5836: See Lane v. Lane-Potter L. Co., 40 Mont., 541, 107 Pac. Rep. 898. New Mexico. Mechanics' lien statute constitutional as against ob- jection that it is unreasonable, unjust, inequitable and oppressive: Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 342, 344; Nash v. Morgan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 344; Metz v. Romero (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 344. 26 Bond for release of lien. Washington. See Kalb-Glibert L. Co. v. Cram, 57 Wash. 550, 107 Pac. Rep. 381 (bond for release of vessel); provision held constitu- tional. Title of act. Oregon. 5668, B. & C. Comp., construction of "mining claim" in title; held constitutional: Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., Jan- uary 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 454. Washington. Laws 1909, c. 45, requiring material-men to deliver duplicate statement at time of delivery of material; held constitu- tional: Finlay v. Tagholm (Wash., November 22, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 782; s. c., 113 Pac. Rep. 1083; Spokane G. & T. Co. v. Lyttaker (Wash., June 16, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 316. Power to employ aliens. California. Contract or statute prohibiting employment of aliens held unconstitutional: City S. I. Co. v. Kroh, 158 Cal. 308, 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 941. See Chicago v. Hurlbert, 205 111. 363, 68 N. E. Rep. 786; People v. Warren, 34 N. Y. Supp. 943, 13 Misc. Rep. 615; Estate of Ghio (Cal. Sup.), 108 Pac. Rep. 516. Jurisdiction of the person and proof thereof. California. Sufficient affidavit of service by publication and consti- tutionality of such service as due process of law: See Roberts v. Jacob, 154 Cal. 307, 97 Pac. Rep. 671. See Holt Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 268, 97 Pac. Rep. 516. 31 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 22. 27 Additional matter to foot-note 24. 28 Additional matter -to foot-note 25. 29 Additional matter to foot-notes 26, 27 and 28. 30 Additional matter to foot-note 29. 31 New Mexico. Bmtentlnl elementM of due pi-ocean of law in action to foreclose mechanic's lien: Robertson v. Mine & S. S. Co. (N. M., August 29, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 1037. See Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427, 436, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 836, 45 L. ed. 1165. Police Power. Hours of employment. Colorado. Act regulating hours of employment, held unconstitu- tional: See Burcher v. People, 41 Colo. 495, 93 Pac. Rep. 14. Oklahoma. Eight-hour law, employment by state, county or mu- nicipality, Sess. Laws 1908, p. 517, c. 53, art. 4, enacted in pursuance of S 1, art. 23, constitution ( 435 Bunn's ed.), held constitutional: Byers v. State, 24 Okl. Cr. Ct. App. 811, 102 Pac. Rep. 804. See Atkin v. State of Kansas, 191 U. S. 207, 24 Sup. Ct. 124, 48 L. ed. 148; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. 427, 41 L. ed. 832; Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270, 21 Sup. Ct. 128, 45 L. ed. 186; Ashby's case, 60 Kan. 101, 56 Pac. Rep. 336, 338; Ryan v. City of New York, 177 N. Y. 271, 69 N. E. Rep. 599; Clark v. State of New Yorc, 142 N. Y. 101, 36 N. E. Rep. 817. See Ex parte Donnellan, 49 Wash. 460, 95 Pac. Rep. 1085 (Sunday law). . Public aafety. Powder. Kantian. Law relating to the sale and delivery of powder at mines; held constitutional: Ex parte Williams, 79 'Kan. 212, 98 Pac. Rep. 777. ConMtructlon of public building", law relating to; held constitu- tional: State v. Board of Comm'rs, 77 Kan. 527, 94 Pac. Rep. 1004. 27 See 41a this Supplement, post. Municipal ordinance*! Reatrlctlng building permits for construc- tion of stable, held unreasonable: Coon v. Board of Public Works, 7 Cal. App. 760, 95 Pac. Rep. 913. Fire limiiv. ordinance beld not retroactive; repairing building: Oregon. Morton v. Wessinger (Oreg., February 14, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 7. See Glenn v. City, 5 Gill & J. (Md.), 424; City of Buffalo v. Chadeayne, 134 N. Y. 163, 165, 31 N. E. Rep. 443. \Vanhlngton. Laws 1893, ch. xxiv, p. 32, 1: See Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 102 Pac. Rep. 766. Oklahoma. Imponlng license tax on "contractor* and persons doing contract work," beyond the power given by legislature to impose tax on "contractors" merely: Ex parte Unger, 22 Okl., 755, 98 Pac. Rep. 999. See State v. McNally, 45 La. Ann. 44. 12 South. Rep. 117. **H*w Mexico. See this Supplement, 33, post. Baldridge v. Mor- gan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 342. 29 California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514. 518, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 30 California. See D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474. 475. 31 California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 518, 519, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 23 CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS LAW APPLICABLE. S 33 33. Same. Valid contract. In a number of states the constitutionality of statutes permitting liens in excess of the contract price agreed upon between the owner and contractor has been upheld. 32 But in California it is said that the general constitutional principle underlying the mechanic's lien is that the liability of the owner who has on his part complied with all of the terms of a valid contract is limited to the price which by his contract he has agreed to pay. 33 Abandonment. Where the contractor fails to perform his undertaking the owner is made liable for such proportion of the contract price as represents the value of the work already done. When he is without any default on his part, bur- dened with the cost of completing the building, it is but fair and just that he should be relieved of the obligation to pay to the original contractor or those claiming under him so much of the contract price as corresponds to the portion of the work left undone. In no other way, it is said, can he be protected in his constitutional right to have his liability limited to the amount which by a valid contract he has agreed to pay. 34 32 Federal. See N. M. and Ohio, this note, post. Massachusetts. Bowen v. Phinney, 162 Mass. 593, 39 N. E. Rep. 283, 44 Am. St. Rep. 391. Minnesota. Laird v. Moonan, 32 Minn. 358, 20 N. "W. Rep. 354. New Mexico. Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 342; Nash v. Morgan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 344; Metz v. Romero (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 344. See Springer L. Assoc. v. Ford, 168 U. S. 513, 18 Sup. Ct. 170, 42 L. ed. 562. Ohio. Great Southern F. P. Co. v. Jones, 193 U. S. 532, 29 Sup. Ct. 576, 48 L. ed. 778; s. c., 86 Fed. Rep. 370, 30 C. C. A. 108. See Bald- ridge v. Morgan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 342. Oklahoma. See Christy v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 742. Tennessee. Cole Mfg. Co. v. Falls, 90 Tenn. 466, 16 S. W. Rep. 1045. Wisconsin. Mallory v. La Crosse A. Co., 80 Wis. 170, 49 N. W. Rep. 1071. 33 California. Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 116, 97 Pac. Rep. 152, citing Kellogg v. Howes, 81 Cal. 179; Stimson M. Co. v. Braun, 136 Cal. 122, 68 Pac. Rep. 481, 89 Am. St. Rep. 116; Latson v. Nelson, 11 Pac. Coast L. J. 589. 34 California. Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 116, 97 Pac. Rep. 152. See Steiger T. C. & P v Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 704, 100 Pac. Rep. 714. These decisions had reference to the law before the Amendments of 1911. 33-36 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 24 Interest. The allowance of interest to the lien claimant, however, is held not to render the statute unconstitutional. 35 Additional matter 'to foot-note 31. 36 34. Same. Power of reputed owner. Estoppel. Additional matter to foot-notes 38 and 40. 37 35. "Impairing obligation of contract." 38 36. Retroactive laws. Where all the proceedings in an action are had prior to the enactment of an amendment to a section of the statute, it can have no effect on the validity or invalidity of a lien. 39 Additional matter to foot-notes 46, 47 and 48. 40 35 California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 260, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; 8. c., sub. nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. 86 New Mexico, f f 2216 et eq. Coinp. I. HUM 1897 are not unconsti- tutional because they permit liens In excess of the contract price of the building or other Improvement on the ground that the statute is a restraint of the liberty of contract or the taking of property without due process of law: Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 342; Nash v. Morgan (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 344; Metz v. Romero (N. M., January 6, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 344. Oklahoma. See contra to text Church v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 740; bhirley v. Union O. & Q. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 742. 37 California. See Holt Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 268, 97 Pac. Rep. 516. KIIIIMUM. See Robert Garrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 180 (Improvement of wife's property by husband), explain- ing Bethell v. Lumber Co., 39 Kan. 230, 17 Pac. Rep. 813. ss See notes, 33 et seq., ante. Washington. See Strand v. Griffith (Wash., May 10, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 512 (new statute delaying sale upon foreclosure of mortgage, unconstitutional, if applied to existing contracts; but change as to posting notices of sale, affecting only remedy, constitutional). so California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 91, 101 Pac. Rep. 38 (with reference to 1203a Code Civ. Proc., relating to mistakes, etc.). 40 Knnnnn. Same principle, see Fossett v. Rock-Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 835; Nixon v. Cydon Lodge, 56 Kan. 298, 43 Pac. Rep. 236; Groesbeck v. Barger, 1 'Kan. App. 61, 41 Pac. Rep. 402; Hotel Co. v. Hardware Co., 56 Kan. 448, 43 Pac. Rep. 769. Washington. See otrand v. Griffith (Wash., May 10, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 512 (change in manner of posting notice). 25 CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS LAW APPLICABLE. 8 ?. 37.49 37. Homestead. Priorities. Additional matter to foot-notes 54 and 55. 41 38. Repeals. Additional matter to foot-note 57. 42 39. Contractor's bond. Additional matter to foot-note 59. 43 40. Attorney's fees. Additional matter to foot-note 62. 44 Additional matter to foot-note 63. 43 41 Texas. Under the constitution, mechanic's lien held prior to home- stead, under certain circumstances: See Summerville v. King, 98 Tex. 332, 338, 83 S. W. Rep. 680. Utah. See Volver-Scowcroft L. Co. v. Vance (Utah, August 26, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 970, affirming s. c. 32 Utah 74, 88 Pac. Rep. 896; holding that the homestead is not subject to a mechanic's lien in the absence of an express contract, and recognizing the general proposition of the text. Washington. Olson v. Gqodsell, 56 Wash. 251, 105 Pac. Rep. 463. See Hookway v. Thompson (Wash.), 105 Pac. Rep. 153 (mortgage). 42 Michigan. See Hanes v. Wadey, 73 Mich, 178, 41 N. W. Rep. 222, 2 L. R. A. 498. i:\VasliiiiKton. Act 1893, ch. xxiv, p. 32: See, explaining cases cited in Treatise, and construction of ch. 116, p. 229, Laws 1905, amending said act, Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 102 Pac. Rep. 766. 44 Alaska. "Attorney's fees allowable: See Pioneer M. Co. v. Del- amotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752, 756 (syllabus misleading). Federal. See Cascaden v. Wimbich, 161 Fed. Rep. 241, 88 C. C. A. 277; Iowa L. L Co. v. Lewis, 187 U. S. 335, 23 Sup. Ct. 126, 47 L. ed. 204; Fidelity L. I. Assoc. Co. v. Mettler, 185 U. S. 308, 22 Sup. Ct. 662, 46 L. ed. 922. Montana. See this section, following note. New Mexico. Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co., 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 605. See Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 342; Cascaden v. Wim- bich, 161 Fed. Rep. 241, 88 C. C. A. 277. 45 Attorney's fees unconstitutional : Alabama. See Southern & N. A. Ry. Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala. 193; Randolph v. Builders', etc., S. Co., 106 Ala. 501, 17 South. Rep. 721. California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 260, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub. nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; Merced L. Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 375, 92 Pac. Rep. 844; Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 274, 96 Pac. Rep. 788; Builders' S. Depot v. O'Connor, 150 Cal. 265, 88 Pac. Rep. 983, 119 Am. St. Rep. 193, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 909. See, also, Stimson M. Co. v. Nolan, 5 Cal. App. 754, 91 Pac. Rep. 262; Hill V. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 95 Pac. Rep. 382; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. 8 41 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 26 41. Jurisdiction. Special case. But where the com- plaint fails to state a cause of action for the foreclosure of the lien, the California Superior Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a cause of action for a money judgment or for services rendered of a value less than three hundred dol- lars. 46 Hlggins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Johnson v. Goodyear M. Co., 127 Cal. 4, 59 Pac. Rep. 304, 78 Am. St. Rep. 17, 47 L. R. A. 338. But see Engebretson v. Gay, 158 Cal. 30, 109 Pac. Rep. 880, a. c. 158 Cal. 27, 109 Pac. Rep. 879; s. c., sub. nom. Gay v. Engebretson, 158 Cal. 21, 109 Pac. Rep. 877 (attorney's fee on foreclosure of street as- sessment lien, held constitutional; and see authorities therein cited, and distinctions made). Colorado. See Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Outcault, 2 Colo. App. 395, 31 Pac. Rep. 177. Federal. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. 225, 41 L. ed. 666. See Greene v. Brigga, 1 Curtis (U. S.), 327 Fed. Cas. No. 5764. Georgia. Phoenix I. Co. v. Hart, 112 Ga. 765, 38 S. E. Rep. 67. Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho, 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 799, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Illinois. See Braceville C. Co. v. People, 147 111. 66, 35 N. E. Rep. 62, 37 Am. St. Rep. 206, 22 L. R. A. 340; Millett v. People, 117 111. 294, 7 N. E. Rep. 631, 57 Am. Rep. 869; Peoria & E. Ry. Co. v. Duggan, 109 111. 537, 50 Am. Rep. 619. Kentucky. See Gordon v. Winchester Assoc., 12 Bush (Ky.), 110, 23 Am. Rep. 713. Michigan. See Grand Rapids C. Co. v. Remells, 77 Mich, 104, 43 N. W. Rep. 1006; Wilder v. C. & W. Mich. Ry. Co., 70 Mich. 382, 38 N. W. Rep. 289. Mississippi. See Chicago, St. L. & M. Ry. Co. v. Moss, 60 Miss. 641. MlMsourl. See Paddock v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 155 Mo. 524, 56 S. W. Rep. 453; West v. Wabash R. Co., 118 Mo. App. 432, 94 S. W. Rep. 310. Montana. Mills v. Olson (Mont., March 29, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 33, 36 (under Rev. St., 7166), overruling Wortman v. Kleinschmidt, 12 Mont. 316, 30 Pac. Rep. 280. Nebraska. See Atchison & Neb. R. Co. v. Boty, 6 Neb. 37, 29 Am. Rep. 356a. Ohio. See Hocking Valley C. Co. v. Rosser, 53 Ohio St. 12, 41 N. E. Rep. 263, 29 L. R. A. 386. Oklahoma. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mashore, 21 Okl. 275, 96 Pac. Rep. 630, 633 (under 1, c. 87, par. 6915, Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. Okl., 1903). Texas. See Antonia & A. P. Ry. v. Wilson (Tex. App.), 19 S. W. Rep. 910. Utah. See Openshaw v. Halfln, 24 Utah 426, 68 Pac. Rep. 138, 91 Am. St. Rep. 796. Wisconsin. See Durkee v. Janesville, 28 Wis. 464, 9 Am. Rep. 500. 46 California. Davis v. Treacy, 8 Cal. App. 395, 97 Pac. Rep. 78 (hearing in Supreme Court denied). See this Supplement, 653 et seq., post. 27 CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS LAW APPLICABLE. 41a. Municipal control over building. The construction of improvements upon private property within a city is not a municipal affair, within the meaning of the constitution; and the city has no interest therein or control thereof, ex- cept such control as may be necessary for the protection of the public welfare, under the police power delegated by the constitution to chartered cities. Such police power, how-v ever, is expressly made subordinate to the general law. And, so, the matter of the size and character of buildings con- structed or to be constructed within the limits of a chartered city and of regulations relating thereto are not municipal affairs. 47 Equity casej appeal direct to Supreme Court: Stockton L. Co. V. Schuler, 7 Cal. App. 257, 94 Pac. Rep. 399. 47 California. May v. Craig, 13 Cal. App. 368, 109 Pac. Rep. 842. See Ordinances, 31, foot-note 21, Treatise, and notes to 31, this Supplement, ante. 42-44 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 28 CHAPTER III. PERSONS ENTITLED. IN GENERAL. 42. Constitutional and legislative classifications. 1 43. Classification as to relation to owner or employer. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 8. 3 Additional matter to foot-note 9. 4 44. Same. As to individuality of claimants. 5 Additional matter to foot-note 10. 6 Additional matter to foot-note II. 7 Additional matter to foot-note 12. 8 1 See notes to 28 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 2 See notes to 572 et seq., this Supplement, post. 8 Strike out note "In interpreting mechanic's-lien law." etc. 4 See "Privity," |J 49 and 695, and "Agency," | 572 et seq., Treatise and this Supplement. Oregon. See Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303; Smith v. Wilcox, 44 Oreg., 323, 74 Pac. Rep. 708, 75 Pac. Rep. 710. 5 Washington. Definition of "claimants," found in decree, see North Coast Ry. Co. v. Hess, 56 Wash. 335, 105 Pac. Rep. 853, 855. Claim of lien of guardian: See Smythe v. Lance, 52 Wash. 560, 100 Pac. Rep. 995. 6 Arlzonn. Suit by auMlgnee of claim: See Harper v. Independence D. Co. (Ariz., April 2, 1910), 108 Pac. Rep. 701, 703. 7 Partnership: California. See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 653, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. Idaho. See Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, s. c., 95 Pac. Rep. 827. Montana. Action by partnership, doing business under a fictitious name, for work and material: See Wilson v. Yeger Bros., 38 Mont. 504, 100 Pac. Rep. 613. Washington. Malfa v. Crisp, 52 Wash. 509, 100 Pac. Rep. 1012 (do- ing business in fictitious name filing certificate pleading). 8 Corporation: California. Coghlan v. Quarataro (Cal. App., March 21, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 667 (hearing by Supreme Court denied). Idaho. Foreign corporation: See Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 770 (failure to file articles of incorpora- tion cases reviewed). Kansas. Compare Shores v. United S. Co. (Kan. April 8, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 1062. New Mexico. Foreign corporation as claimant: See Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706. Washington. See Pacific I. & S. Works v. Goerig, 55 Wash. 149 104 Pac. Rep. 151. 29 ORIGINAL CONTRACTORS. 45 46 CHAPTER IV. ORIGINAL CONTRACTORS. 45. Definition of "original contractor." * Additional matter to foot-note I. 2 46. Same. One test. Intermediate liens. There is nothing in the spirit or letter of the mechanics' lien law which indicates that the subclaimants ' liens can be affected by the obligations which exist between the contractor and. subcontractor. 3 Additional matter to foot-note 6. 4 1 Idaho. See New Mexico, this note, post. Louisiana. See State v. McNally, 45 La. Ann. 44, 12 South. Rep. 117. New Mexico. There has been much diversity of opinion and con- fusion as to the meaning of the words "original contractor" in a statute like the New Mexico statute (2221, Comp. L.), but we think that the Idaho court, under a statute identical in terms with ours, has announced the true rule, namely, that every person who deals directly with the owner of the property and who in pursuance of a contract with him performs labor or furnishes material is an original contractor within the meaning of the statute (Colorado I. Works v. Rieckenberg, 4 Idaho 262, 38 P*ac. Rep. 651). The same holding prevails in Texas, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin, and the cases from those states are cited in the Idaho opinion: Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 605. (This definition would hardly cover all of the questions that might arise under the statute, as shown in the text of the Treatise.) Montana. Independent Contractor, under logging lien law: See Lane v. Lane Potter L. Co., 40 Mont. 541, 107 Pac. Rep. 898. Oklahoma. See Ex parte Unger, 22 Okl. 755, 98 Pac. Rep. 999. Pennsylvania. See Brown v. German-American T. & T. Co., 174 Pa. 443, 34 Atl. Rep. 335. 2 Washington. The contractor has a lien for the contract price, irrespective of the fact that he performed no service further than overseeing the construction of the building, according to his contract: Smythe v. Lance, 52 Wash. 560, 100 Pac. Rep. 995. 3 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 462, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. See Parnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 271, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. See 54 this Supplement, post. 4 California. Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714 (tiling for roof and placing same in position). 47-54 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 3Q 47. Same. Four essential factors.-"' 48. Same. Two or more original contractors/ 5 49. First test. Privity. 7 Additional matter to foot-note 10. 8 50. Same. Holder of legal title. 9 51. Same. Tenant. 10 52. Same. Void contract. 11 53. Same. Implied original contract. 12 54. Second test. Intermediate lienholders. Additional matter to foot-note 19. 13 See this Supplement, |i 49 et seq., post. e California. See Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 486, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. Oklahoma. See Albertl v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 548. See 59, Treatise. 7 Definition of privy i Holt MIX-. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 273; Orthwein v. Thomas, 127 111. 554, 21 N. E. Rep. 430, 11 -Am. St. Rep. 159; and see Llpcomb v. Postell, 38 Miss. 476, 77 Am. Dec. 651. 8 Oregon. See Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. - Rep. 447, 450. As to whether party original contractor or subcontractor: See Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. Privity: Idaho. See Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 27. \\HxlilnKton. See Erickson v. Hochbrune, 47 Wash. 33, 91 Pac. Rep. 485. See S 67 Treatise. 10 See | 464, 467, 477, this Supplement, post. 11 See I 67 Treatise. Statutory original contract abolished (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). Colorado. Nor when the statutory original contract is not filed: Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. 12 California. Statutory original contract abolished (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). is See 846 this Supplement, ante. California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 271, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. YVaahlngrton. See Pennsylvania C. Co. v. Washington P. C. Co., (Wash. June 27, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 284. 31 ORIGINAL CONTRACTORS. SS 55.59 55. Same. Agency. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 14 56. Same. Direct contract with owner. 15 57. Same. Material-man. Additional matter to foot-note 25. 16 58. Third test. Personal liability. 17 59. Fourth test. Labor contract. 18 Additional matter to foot-note 28. 19 14 California. See Loma Prieta L. Co. v. Hinton, 12 Cal. App. 766, 108 Pac. Rep. 766, 108 Pac. Rep. 528. Idaho. Valley L. Mfg. Co. v. Nlckerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 27. Oregon. See Equrtable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 450; Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co. 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303; Smith v. Wilcox, 44 Oreg. 323, 74 Pac. Rep. 708, 75 Pac. Rep. 710. Washington. See Pennsylvania C. Co. v. Washington P. C. Co. (Wash., June 27, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 284. is See 77 et seq., post. 16 California. See Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714. 17 Compare distinction, servant and independent contractor, in the law of negligence: California. Gay v. Engebretson, 158 Cal. 21, 109 Pac. Rep. 877; s. c., sub. nom. Engebretson v. Gay, 158 Cal. 27, 30, 109 Pac. Rep. 879, 880; Pearson v. M. M. Potter Co., 10 Cal. App. 245, 101 Pac. Rep. 681, and cases cited. Kansas. See Nelson v: American C. P. Co. (Kan., May 6, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 578. Montana. See Poor v. Madison R. P. Co., 38 Mont. 341, 99 Pac. Rep. 947; Jensen v. Barbour, 15 Mont. 582, 39 Pac. Rep. 906. Independent contractor: Kansas. See Chute v. Moeser, 77 Kan. 706, 95 Pac. Rep. 398. Utah. See Morris v. Salt Lake City, 25 Utah 474, 101 Pac. Rep. 373. is Washington. See Gary v. Sparkman & McLean Co. (Wash., March 8, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 1093. 19 Oklahoma. "Persons doing contract work": See Ex parte Unger, 22 Okl. 755, 98 Pac. Rep. 999. See State v. McNally, 45 La. Ann. 44, 12 South. Rep. 117. See 48 Treatise. Washington. It is not necessary that the -original contractor should personally perform labor on the structure to have a lien: Smythe v. Lance, 52 Wash. 560, 100 Pac. Rep. 995. | 60-62 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 32 60. Distinction between ' ' original contractor ' ' and ' ' ma- terial-man." Additional matter to foot-note 33. 20 61. General rights of original contractors. As against person who "caused" improvement to be made. Notice to withhold. Under the statute of California, section eleven hundred and eighty-three of the Code of Civil Procedure, before amendment of 1911, the original contractor was, of course, not entitled to serve notice on the owner to withhold payment. 21 Under valid contract. As the statute stood, before the amendment of 1911, in California, as well as elsewhere, in general, the original contractor could recover for a substan- tial performance of the contract, under the modern equitable doctrine, the owner being protected by recoupment for de- ficiencies. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 45. 23 Additional matter to foot-note 46. 24 Additional matter to foot-note 49. 25 62. Same. As against other persons in privity with him. The statute does not attempt to define or interfere with the contractual relations between the contractor and 20 California. Stelger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714. 21 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 462, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 22 California. Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 488, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. Utah. Foulger v. McQrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004, 1006. See doctrine In detail, 341-345 Treatise and this Supplement. -'3 California. And he may recover a personal judgment. If the Hen falls: Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Hlgglns, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524, 526. 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. KmiMiiM. Fossett v. Rock-Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 838, 839. 24 California. Compare Dahlberg v. Glrsch, 157 Cal. 324, 330, 107 Pac. Rep. 616. Washington. Contractor has a Hen for the contract price: Smythe v. Lance, 52 Wash. 560, 100 Pac. Rep. 995. 23 California. See L. A. P. B. Co. v. Hlgglns, 8 Cal. App. 514. 524, 97 Pac. Rep. 414. 420. 33 ORIGINAL CONTRACTORS. 62-64 his subcontractor until the subcontractor has brought him- self within the provisions of the mechanics' lien law. 26 Additional matter to foot-note 52. 27 Additional matter to foot-note 53. 28 63. Same. As against other persons. Where the con- tractor enters into a contract with a third person for work and material, and not for the purchase of material merely, in the absence of an express agreement, no title passes from the vendor until it is affixed to the freehold, so far as the con- tractor is concerned. 29 64. General obligations of original contractors. Additional matter to foot-note 57. 30 Additional matter to foot-note 58. 31 Additional mattter to foot-note 60. 32 26 California. Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714 (said with reference to question of aban- donment). 27 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. Oklahoma. Vandenberg v. P. T. Walton L. Co., 19 Okl., 169, 92 Pac. Rep. 149, 150. 28 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 29 California. Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714. Louisiana. See Cameron v. Orleans & J. Ry. Co., 108 La. 83, 32 South. Rep. 208; Orleans & J. Ry. Co. v. International Const. Co., 108 La. 82, 32 South. Rep. 18 (materials for street railway). Wisconsin. Chandler v. De Graff, 22 Minn. 471 (railroad ties for railway). so See doctrine in detail, 341-345, Treatise and this Supplement. And see 61, this Supplement, ante. California. Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 488, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. Kansas. See Fossett v. Rock-Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 823, 838, 839. Oklahoma. Vandenberg v. P. T. Walton L. Co. 19 Okl. 169, 92 Pac. Rep. 150. Oregon. In good faith: Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533, 534. Utah. Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004, 1006, 1007. 31 Utah. See Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004, 1006, 1007. See Performance, 339 Treatise and this Supplement. 32 California. See Dahlberg v. Girsch, 157 Cal. 324, 330, 107 Pac. Rep. 616. Bloom's Sup. 3 64-65a MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 34 Additional matter to foot-note 61. 33 Additional matter to foot-note 63. 34 65. Same. To 'other persons. 35 The subcontractor or material-man may recover a personal judgment against the contractor for labor or materials furnished to him at his re- quest. 36 Additional matter to foot-note 65. 37 Additional matter to foot-note 68. 38 65a. Same. Where the original contractor pays to the subcontractor his indebtedness to him, after the stautory notice to withhold payment has been served on the owner 33 Oklahoma. See Vandenberg v. P. T. Walton L. Co., 19 Okl. 169, 92 Pac. Rep. 149, 150. 34 California. Klokke v. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 5, 96 Pac. Rep. 392. K n us JIM. Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1004. Oklahoma. It la not the contractor's duty to defend against the liens of subclaimants under his subclaimants; but It Is his duty to pay the moneys due under the original contract in a manner to pro- tect th building and owner from liens caused by his subclaimants' contracts, after a decree establishing the liens; he has a right to insist that such liens shall be established by decree of court, and payment by the contractor before that time is at his peril. It is his duty to show to the court by proper pleading and proof the amount which his subcontractors or those entitled to liens under them are entitled to receive. It is his duty and that of those claiming liens under him to protect themselves against unlawful claims. Nothing here said is to indicate that the original contractor is not bound to protect the building from liens, but the building is under the circum- stances liable only to the amount of the contract price: Vandenberg v. P. T. Walton L. Co.. 19 Okl. 169, 92 Pac. Rep. 149, 150. 35 See 58, this Supplement, independent contractor. Utah. Action against contractor and municipality for damages to abutting property in performance of contract: See Morris v. Salt Lake City. 35 Utah 474, 101 Pac. Rep. 373. 3 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 515, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Colorado. See Estey v. Halleck & Howard L. Co., 4 Colo. App. 165, 34 Pac. Rep. 1114. Oklahoma. Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 546. Washington. Rasmussen v. Liming, 50 Wash. 184, 96 Pac. Rep. 1044. 37 Oregon. Contractor under no obligation to pay owner'* claim- ants See Mclnnis v. Buchanon, 53 Oreg. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 929, 930. \VlHconnln. See Walker v. Newton, 53 Wis. 336, 10 N. W. Rep. 436. 38 California. Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 506, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. Oklahoma. See Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 546. 35 ORIGINAL CONTRACTORS. by such subcontractor's subclaimants under a statutory original contract, even if the contractor is not notified of the claim of such subclaimants, it does not affect the lien on the fund in the hands of the owner nor the lien upon the prop- erty, where there is moneys in the hands of the owner due to the original contractor, under the terms of the original contract, at the time of the service of the notice. 39 The original contractor is not liable to the subcontractor when the contract between them embodies the original contract by proper reference and when under the terms of the orig- inal contract the original contractor can not recover from the owner by reason of the destruction of the building. 40 65b. Death of owner. Presentation of claim. When the owner dies after making a construction contract, the contractor must present his claim to the personal representa- tive within the time required by law, where no claim of lien has been filed against the property improved, or the con- tractor has no claim against the estate. 41 39 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 40 California. Watson v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 560, 565, 108 Pac. Rep. 48; Watson v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 566, 108 Pac. Rep. 50 (hearing in Supreme Court denied). 41 California. In re Hincheon's Estate (Cal. Sup., May 16, 1911; on rehearing in bank June 15, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 47. 66-68 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 35 CHAPTER V. SUBCONTRACTORS. 66. Definition of ' ' subcontractor. ' ' * Subcontractor not required to perform personal labor. The fact that the subcontractor himself does not per-' form personal labor upon the building, but does the work through his own subcontractors, employees or laborers, does not prevent him from obtaining a lien, which will cover the liens of all of his subclaimants. 2 Additional matter to foot-note I. 3 67. Different degrees of subcontractors. Additional matter to foot-note 4. 4 8 68. Distinction. Subcontractor and material-man. 5 1 Washington. The term subcontractor has a well defined meaning: in building contracts. A subcontractor Is one who takes from the principal contractor a specific part of the work and the term does not include laborers or material-men: Young Men's C. Assoc. of North Yakima V. Gibson, 58 Wash. 307, 108 Pac. Rep. 766, 769. See Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Canada & St. L. Ry. Co., 127 Ind. 250, 26 N. E. Rep. 784, 11 L. R. A. 740. 2 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 765; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Washington. Smyth.- v. Lance, 52 Washington 560, 100 Pac. Rep. 995 (under Ballinger's Ann. C. & S., S 5900 Pierce's Code, S 6102). See Powell v. Nolan, 27 Wash. 318, 341, 67 Pac. Rep. 712, 720, 68 Pac. Rep. 389; Blumauer v. Clock, 24 Wash. 596, 64 Pac. Rep. 844, 85 Am. St. Rep. 966. s Colorado. The statute designates all subclaimants as "subcon- tractors": Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. Oregon. As to whether party is original contractor or subcon- tractor, see Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 338, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079, s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081, s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 4 Colorado. And the same rule applies where the statutory original contract, or the memorandum thereof, is not filed as required by the statute: Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. 5 California. See Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714. The statute does not authorize a lien In favor of one who Is a subcontractor under a subcontractor in the following states: 37 SUBCONTRACTORS. 68-70 Additional matter to foot-note 5. 6 69. Same. Subcontractor and employees of material- man. 7 69a. Lessor of means or appliances of construction. In the absence of a statute expressly authorizing the same, 8 where a person simply lets to the original contractor, without reserving any control over the same, tools, machinery or ap- pliances, or means of bringing into existence the object con- structed, such as horses and harness furnished to the con- tractor at a stipulated price per month per horse, the con- tractor having full control of the horses during the time of hiring, and paying the drivers thereof, such person does not "bestow" labor upon the structure and is not a subcon- tractor, and occupies no contractual position whatever re- specting the work. 9 The subcontractor may "bestow" labor, as the term is used in the statute, through his servants and employees, without personally laboring on the structure. 10 70. General rights of subcontractors. 11 Kansas. Home L. & S. Co. v. School Dist. (Kan., May 6, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 590. See Nixon v. Cydon Lodge, 56 Kan. 298, 43 Pac. Rep. 236. Oklahoma. Vandenberg v. P. T. Walton L. Co., 19 Okl. 169, 92 Pac. Rep. 149. Contractor's material-man, "subcontractor" under statute: Kansas. Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. e Washington. See Finlay v. Tagholm (Wash., March 8, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 1083, s. c., Ill Pac. Rep. 782. 7 See "Material-men," 77 et seq., this Supplement, post. 8 California. See 1183 Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911, Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 9 California. Wood, Curtis & Co. v. El Dorado L. Co., 153 Cal. 230, 94 Pac. Rep. 877, explaining cases in 91, foot-note 41 of Treatise. See Clark v. Brawn, 141 Cal. 93, 74 Pac. Rep. 548. See Material-man, 89-91, Treatise and this Supplement. 10 California. Wood, Curtis & Co. v. El Dorado L. Co., 153 Cal. 230, 94 Pac. Rep. 877; Macomber v. Bigelow, 126 Cal. 9, 14, 58 Pac. Rep. 312. See 138 Treatise and this Supplement. 11 Compare Rights of Material-men, 101, Treatise and this Sup- plement, post. 5 71 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 33 71. Same. Valid contract. The subcontractor has a lien under the statute, 12 and his subcontractors and material- men in various degrees, in most jurisdictons considered, have a lien not dependent upon whether the material or services were furnished at the order of the contractor; but the right to the lien depends upon performing the labor or furnishing the materials for the property, at the instance of the owner or his agent, actual, ostensible or statutory. 13 When the terms and conditions of the original contract are made part of the subcontract by proper reference, the sub- contractor is bound by all of the terms of the original con- tract; 14 and when the original contractor can not recover thereon against the owner by reason of the destruction of the building before completion, the subcontractor can not recover against the contractor. 15 Additional matter to foot-note II. 16 Additional matter to foot-note 12. 17 12 California. Coghlan v. Quarataro (Cal. App., March 21, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 667. is California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 14 Utah. Midgley v. Campbell B. Co. (Utah), 112 Pac. Rep. 820. is California. Watson v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 560, 565, 108 Pac. Rep. 48 (hearing In Supreme Court denied); Watson v. Alta I Co., 12 Cal. App. 566, 108 Pac. Rep. 50. 16 The contract price ! the fond from which the subcontractors are entitled to receive their pay, if they have perfected their liens: Kanaa*. See Town Co. v. Morris, 39 'Kan. 377, 18 Pac. Rep. 230; Clough v. McDonald, 18 Kan. 114, 118; Shellabarger v. Thayer, 15 Kan. 619; Fossett v. Rock-Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833. 835. The subcontractor who IIIIM lost his lien by failure to give the notice or to file his statement has no right to share in the distribu- tion and no claim against the property: Fossett v. Rock-Island L. 6 Mfg. Co., supra. IT California. See {1183 Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.: "Nor in any case, where the claimant was employed by a contractor, or subcontractor, shall the lien extend to any labor or materials not embraced within or cov- ered by the original contract between the contractor and the owner, or any modification thereof made by or with the consent of such owner, and of which such contract, or modification thereof the claim- ant shall have had actual notice before the performance of such labor or the furnishing of such materials." It is further provided that the filing of such contract or modification in the office of the county recorder shall be equivalent to such notice. 39 SUBCONTRACTORS. 72-73a 72. Same. Void contract. 18 73. Same. Personal rights. Additional matter to foot-note 16. 19 Additional matter to foot-note 17. 20 Additional matter to foot-note 18. 21 -Additional matter to foot-note 19. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 20. 23 73a. Same. Death of original contractor. Where the original contractor dies after levy of execution by way of is California. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by Amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See 268, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, post. 19 Oklahoma. And the subclaimant does not waive the personal liability of the contractor who contracts with him by reason of filing a notice of lien: Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. 20 California. Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 506, 97 Pac. Rep. 216, s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. AH between the contractor and his subcontractors there may be offsets, counterclaims and defenses as to which the owner may have no knowledge or concern. The subcontractor may depend upon the personal liability of the contractor and claim no lien as against the owner; but where a lien is claimed and sought to be enforced the owner is, of course, interested in the extent of the lien to be estab- lished against his property: Kansas. Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. ioas, 1004. Oklahoma. Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. 21 Montana. So far as the lien is concerned, the contractor ha's no right to apply payments to other buildings to the prejudice of the owner of the building on account of which the owner made the pay- ment to the subcontractor: Mills v. Olsen (Mont., March 29, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 33, 36. Oklahoma. The subcontractor has a lien, established in the same mode and to the same extent as the original contractor, but to no greater extent; and when there is no primary obligation to the original contractor, there is none to his subcontractor: Christy v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl., March 21, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 742. 22 There being no privity: Kansas. Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1004. See Fossett v. Rock-Island L. & M. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.), 918. Oklahoma. Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. 23 California. As to payment of subcontractor's claimants first out of proceeds: See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 765; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub. nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 73a-75 MECHANICS- LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 40 garnishment against the owner on behalf of his claimants recovering personal judgments against the contractor, the failure of the claimants to present their claims to the admin- istrator of the estate of the original contractor does not af- fect their right to reduce to possession the debt due from the owner to the original contractor. 24 74. Same. Amount of claim. In enforcing liens of the various claimants and subclaimants, under a valid contract, or when an indirect lien is given, there must be an adjust- ment of the rights of the respective parties, 25 and the prop- erty being liable only for the value of the work done, if there be not sufficient funds to pay the subcontractor and his em- ployees, the latter must be first paid, and the loss, if any, must be borne by the subcontractor. 26 Relations between contractor and subcontractor. But it has been said that there was nothing in the letter or spirit of the California lien law, as it existed before the amendment of 1911, to indicate that the laborers and material-men's liens could be affected by the obligations which existed between the contractor and his subcontractor. 27 Additional matter to foot-note 21. 28 75. Same. Priorities. 29 24 California. Nordstrom v. Corona City W. Co., 155 Cal. 206, 213, 100 Pac. Rep. 242. 25 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. Colorado. Estey v. Halleck & Howard L. Co., 4 Colo. App. 165, 34 Pac. Rep. 1114. Oklahoma. Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. 28 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. Oklahoma. The subcontractor is entitled to recover on his lien an amount sufficient to cover what is due to his subclaimants: Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 643, 547. 27 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 28 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 2 See "Priorities," $486 et seq., this Supplement, post. 41 SUBCONTRACTORS. s 75 76. General obligations of subcontractors. If the sub- contractor did not perform his contract with the original contractor, under the California statute as it existed before the amendment of 1911, the subcontractor's lien might have been refused. 30 Additional matter to foot-note 23. 31 Additional matter to foot-note 24. 32 so California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 517, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 31 Kansas. Fossett v. Rock-Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 838, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.), 918. 32 Kansas. The owner may recoup damages against the subcon- tractor for breach of the contract, without regard to specific pro- vision for damages In contract: Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1005. See Fossett v. Rock-Island L. & M. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.), 918. 77-82 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. ^ 42 CHAPTER VI. MATERIAL-MEN. 77. Distinction. Material-man, original contractor, and subcontractor. 1 78. Definition of ' ' material-man. ' ' 2 Additional matter to foot-note I. 3 79. Who are not material-men. 4 80. Same. Placing material in situ. Additional matter to foot-note II. 5 81. Distinction between material-man and subcontrac- tor. 6 82. Circumstances under which lien for materials is given. The contract. Use of materials. 7 1 Kansas. Contractor's material-man, "subcontractor" under the statute: Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. \\ .-iNiiiimion. One furnishing sashes, doors and glass for a building is a material-man and not a subcontractor; otherwise, every material- man would fall into the class of subcontractors, and such construc- tion would nullify the plain terms of the statute: Findlay v. Tag- holm (Wash., March 8, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 1083; s. c., Ill Pac. Rep. 782. 2 See Statutory Agency, 672 et seq., Treatise and this Supplement. Idaho. See Shaw v. Johnston-, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. a California. See Loma Prieta L. Co. v. Hinton, 12 Cal. App. 766, 768, 108 Pac. Rep. 528. Washington. See Gate City L. Co. v. City of Montesano (Novem- ber 25, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 799. 4 See 60 and 68 this Supplement, ante. B California. But see Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714, where the person furnishing and placing tiling on a roof was held a subcontractor. e California. Compare Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714. 7 The contract i California. Contract for delivery of material of a certain amount per month, construed calendar month: Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern R. Co. (Cal.), 110 Pac. Rep. 951, 953. 43 MATERIAL-MEN. S S 82 83 Additional matter to foot-note 16. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 17. 9 Additional matter to foot-note 19. 10 83. Same. Contract for sale, or for labor. 11 8 Kansas. The contract for materials need not describe the lots or the building, and the material-man need not know the exact loca- tion of the same: Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan., March 11, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 373; Wilson v. Howell, 48 Kan. 150, 152, 29 Pac. Rep. 151. Nor need the material-man know the precise character of the con- templated improvement; it is enough for him to know of the original contract and to know that the materials are to go to the betterment of the estate of the owner named: Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co., supra.' The language employed in Sturges v. Green, 27 Kan. 235, and Wilson v. Howell, 48 Kan. 150, 152, 29 Pac. Rep. 151, means that the statute is satisfied if the understanding be that the material is pur- chased for an improvement for a particular person or upon a par- ticular contract: Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co., supra. New Mexico. Contract in writing. In the absence of an express statutory requirement, the contract for the sale of material need not be in writing, nor if in writing need it show that the material is sold to be used in the construction of the particular building upon which the lien is sought to be impressed.- These facts may be shown by parol evidence, if it does not dispute or alter the terms of any written contract: Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710. The Statute of Frauds must, of course, be followed. 9 Sold to be used: California. See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Gal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. Colorado. Evidence of delivery and use held sufficient: See Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. See Rice v. Rhone (Colo., May 2, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 585. Idaho. See Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 27. Kansas. But see Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan., March 11, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 373, 374. New Mexico. See contra, Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710. Washington. Pacific L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash., November 22, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 869, 870. 10 Sale of material in other state: New Mexico: Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 709. Contra: Burmingham I. Foundry v. Glenn Cove S. Mfg. Co., 78 N. Y. 30, under a more restrictive statute. Strike this case from foot- note 19 in Treatise. 11 California. See Steiger T. C. & P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714. 84-88 MECHANICS 1 LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 44 84. Same. Formalities. Recording contract. 12 85. Same. As affected by original contract. Additional matter to foot-note 21. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 22. 14 86. Same. Other general essentials. 15 87. Same. Nature and manner of use of materials. 10 88. Same. Definition of ' ' furnished. " * 7 is See f 82 Treatise and this Supplement, ante. KMM*. See Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan., March 11, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 373, 374. is California. Howe v. Schmidt (Cal.), 90 Pac. Rep. 1056. Kaa*a*. Subcontractor under the statute (Gen. St. 1909, 6246) must contract with reference to the original contract, that Is, he must have knowledge of such original contract and that the material to be furnished Is going to the betterment of some particular estate: Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan., March 11, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 374; Manufacturing Co. v. Best, 63 Kan. 187, 192, 65 Pac. Rep. 239. 241. M California. See J 71 this Supplement: 51183 Code Civ. Proc., aa amended May 1, 1911, Stats. & Admts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. Idaho. The contractor'* agency extends only to the purchase of material reasonably necessary for the building of the structure in accordance with the original contract and for the reasonable value of such materials only as are ordinarily sufficient to properly con- struct the building in accordance with the plans and specifications: Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 27. Washington. See Rieflin v. Grafton (Wash., June 1, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 851, 853. it New Mexico. U*e of material*. Neher v. Vivlanl (N. M., August 10. 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 698. 10 Material* mmt be actually niiedt California. See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. Colorado. See Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. Idaho. Valley I.. & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 26. Kan*a*. See Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan., March 11, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 373, 374. Nebraska. See Foster v. Dohle, 17 Neb. 631, 24 N. W. Rep. 208; Weir v. Barnes, 38 Neb. 875, 57 N. W. Rep. 750. New Mexico. Neher v. Viviani (N. M., August 10, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 695. 698. Washington. Gate City L. Co. v. City of Montesano (Wash., No- vember 25, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 799, 87 Pac. Rep. 485. IT Washington. Place of delivery of materials See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. McCann, 48 Wash. 174, 93 Pac. Rep. 216. 45 MATERIAL-MEN. 88,89 Additional matter to foot-note 27. 18 89. Same. Materials, how used. 19 Additional matter to foot-note 28. 20 Additional matter to foot-note 29. 21 Additional matter to foot-note 30. 22 18 Definitions of "furnished": New Mexico. Compare Smith v. Hicks, 14 N. M. 560, 98 Pac. Rep. 138, 140. Oregon. Compare Brown v. Sharkey (Oreg., April 25, 1911), Hi Pac. Rep. 156. 19 California. Horses and harness let to a contractor at a stipu- lated rate per month, under control of the teamster hired and paid by original contractor; no lien therefor: Wood, Curtis & Co. v. El Dorado L. Co., 153 Cal. 230, 94 Pac. Rep. 877. Oklahoma. Material for paving streets: See City of Oklahoma v. Shields, 22 Okl. 265, 100 Pac. Rep. 559. 20 Washington. See Gilbert-Hunt Co. v. Parry (Wash.), HO Pac. Rep. 541, 543; Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 871. Wisconsin. See McAuliff v. Jorgenson, 107 Wis. 132, 82 N. W. Rep. 706. 21 Lien given, material in furtherance of work: Power and electricity: California. Power: See 1183 Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., allowing lien. Montana. See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. Oregon. Electricity for li.ght and power, "supplies" for mine within meaning of L. O. L. 7444, for which lien is given; Grant's Pass B. & T. Co. v. Enterprise M. Co. (Oreg., March 7, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 859. See Rowen v. Alladio, 51 Oreg. 121, 93 Pac. Rep. 929; Scannevin V. Consolidated M. W. Co., 25 R. I. 318, 55 Atl. Rep. 754. Washington. Computing amount due for power; -wattmeter- volt- age: See Seattle R. & S. Ry. Co. v. Seattle-Tacoma P. Co. (Wash., June 23, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 289, 292. Camp equipments; no lien under 1, c. 24, p. 32, Laws 1893, amended by c. 116, p. 2,29, Laws 1905; Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 102 Pac. Rep. 766. 22 Without statutory allowance tools and appliances not lienahle: Idaho. Allowable: Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 577, s. c., 95 Pac. Rep. 827. Indiana. See Potter Mfg. Co. v. Myer & Co., 171 Ind. 513, 86 N. E. Rep. 837, 131 Am. St. Rep. 267. Maryland. See Basshor v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 65 Md. 99. Missouri. See Meistrel v. Reach, 56 Mo. App. 243. Oregon. See Allen v. Elwert, 29 Oreg. 428, 44 Pac. Rep. 823. Washington. Gilbert-Hunt Co. v. Parry (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 541, 543 (many items specifically set forth in this case) ; Hall v. Cowen, 51 Wash. 295, 98 Pac. Rep. 670 (scrapers); Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 871, 102 Pac. Rep. 766. See Vendome T. B. Co. v. Schettler, 2 Wash. St. 457, 27 Pac. Rep. 76. 706; Rinzer v. Stumpf, 116 Wis. 287, 93 N. W. Rep. 36. 89-91 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 4(j Additional matter to foot-note 31. 23 Additional matter to foot-note 32. 24 90. Same. Lien, when allowed. Package. Additional matter to foot-note 39. 25 91. Same. Carriage charges. Building as material. 26 Additional matter to foot-note 40. 27 Additional matter to foot-note 41. 28 Additional matter to foot-note 42. 29 23 See "Supplies" post. 101, this Supplement. California. See $ 1183 as amended, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., as to power, and see authorities to foot-note 29 of Treatise ante, this section. Oregon. Provision* furnished for men: See Durkheimer v. Copper- opolls (Oreg., Nov. 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, 896. Washington. See Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash., 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 871, 102 Pac. Rep. 766. 24 Colorado. Hughes v. Kershow, 42 Colo. 210, 93 Pac. Rep. 1116. Washington. See Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 871, 102 Pac. Rep. 766. But otherwise, If he deliver money to the owner for the purpose of paying for material and the transac- tion is in Its nature the sale of material; and where one who obtains materials from his employer, a manufacturer, and the same Is charged to his wages, and such material is furnished for use In the building, he is a material-man and is entitled to a lien: Poplella v. Zolawenski, 51 Wash. 39, 97 Pac. Rep. 972. 25 Powders California. Definition of "giant powder," "nitroglycerine," see Peo- ple v. Swaile, 12 Cal. App. 192, 107 Pac. Rep. 134. Colorado. Powder, fuse and caps: See Barnes v. Colorado Springs C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. Kansas. Law relating to sale and delivery of powder at mines, constitutional: Ex parte Williams, 79 Kan. 212, 98 Pac. Rep. 777. 26 California. Cells In jail; "furnishings": See Sarver v. Los An- geles County, 156 Cal. 187, 103 Pac. Rep. 917. See Pauly J. B. & Mfg. Co. v. Commissioners, 68 Fed. Rep. 171. Otherwise, when part of Jail proper: Sarver v. Los Angeles County, supra; Estle v. Leary, 114 Cal. 238, 46 Pac. Rep. 1. Colorado. Building as material: Compare Hughes v. Kershow, 42 Colo. 210, 93 Pac. Rep. 1116. 27 California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 653, 103 Pac. Rep. 157; Wood. Curtis & Co. v. El Dorado L. Co., 153 Cal. 230, 94 Pac. Rep. 887. Washington. See Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, * 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 102 Pac. Rep. 766; Gilbert-Hunt Co. v. Parry (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 541, 542. 28 Oregon. Definition of "Team": Krebs Hop Co. v. Taylor, 97 Pac. Rep. 44, 45 (replevin). 29 California. Compare Barber A. P. P. Co. v. Santa Barbara I. Co., 110 Pac. Rep. 463, 464. 47 MATERIAL-MEN. SS 92-97 92. Same. Nature of the work on the property for which the materials are furnished. The work must be upon real property and not merely upon personal property. 30 93. Same. Alteration, construction, addition to, re- pair. 31 94. Same. Extent of alteration or repair. 32 95. Same. Fixtures. There is no mechanic 's lien on merely personal property. 33 Additional matter to foot-note 50. 34 96. Same. In mining claims and mines. 35 97. Same. Street-work, grading, etc. 36 so Oklahoma. Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214. Oregon. See Rowen v. Alladio, 51 Ores'. 121, 93 Pac. Rep. 929. See 95, additional matter to note 50 of text, this Supplement, post. si Oregon. See Rowen v. Alladio, 51 Greg., 121, 93 Pac. Rep. 929. Washington. See Stetson & Post L. Co. v. W. & J. Sloane Co. (Wash., December 12, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 248, 249. 32 Washington. See Stetson & Post L. Co. v. W. & J. Sloane Co. (Wash., December 12, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 248, 249. 33 Federal. Armstrong Cork Co. v. Merchant's R. Co. (C. C. A.), 184 Fed. Rep. 199, 207; s. c. (C. C. Mo.), 171 Fed. Rep. 778. Oklahoma. Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 214. Oregon. See Rowen v. Alladio, 51 Oreg. 121, 93 Pac. Rep. 929. See 92 and note this Supplement, ante. 34 Washington. ' American R. Co. v. Pendleton (Wash., February 2, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 1117. 35 Fixture in connection with mine: California. See Conde v. Sweeney (Cal. App., August 4, 1911), 110 Pac. Rep. 973, 116 Pac. Rep. 319. Nevada. See Arnold v. Goldfleld T. C. M. Co. (Nev., July 1, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 718. Utah. See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah, June 12, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. 36 As to sidewalks: Idaho. See Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. Washington. See Hall v. Cowen, 51 Wash. 295, 98 Pac. Rep. 670. 98-101 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 4g 98. Same. Nature of property for which material must be furnished. Generally. 37 99. Same. Mines and mining claims. 38 100. Same. Lien allowed. Additional matter to foot-note 57. 39 101. General rights of material-men. 40 There is no privity between the owner and the contractor's material- men. 41 It has been said in California that subcontractor's material-men's liens are not affected by the obligations which exist between the contractor and his subcontractor. 42 The right of the subcontractor's material-man to a lien against the property, or the unpaid portion of the contract price under a valid contract, does not depend upon the ma- terial being ordered by the contractor, but only upon the furnishing of the material and its use in the structure, whether at the instance of the owner, or of his agent, actual, ostensible or statutory. 43 It is not affected by the failure 37 See 87, this Supplement, ante. 38 See 1183, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313, et seq.). 39 Oregon, gee Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 455. 40 Failure to pay occupation license by material-man: See Fossett v. Rock-Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833; Prather v. People, 85 111. 36. Damage* for delay In transportations See St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gaba, 78 Kan. 432, 97 Pac. Rep. 435; Guetzkow Bros. Co. v. Andrews, 92 Wis. 214, 66 N. W. Rep. 119, 52 L. R. A. 209, 53 Am. St. Rep. 909. Damages for delay In delivery of material: See Standard L. Co. v. Miller & Vidor L. Co., 21 Okl. 617, 96 Pac. Rep. 761, 765. Waiver of right to rescind for non-payment of Installment, by granting time: See Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern R. Co., 158 Cal. 264, 110 Pac. Rep. 951, 955. 41 California. San Pedro L. Co. v. Schroeder, 156 Cal. 158, 161, 103 Pac. Rep. 888. Idaho. See Larson v. Carter, 14 Idaho 511, 94 Pac. Rep. 825, 827. Kansas. See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613', 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. Washington. Privity with contractor and his wife, see Rasmussen v. Liming, 50 Wash. 184. 96 Pac. Rep. 1044. 42 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 462, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 43 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 462, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 49 MATERIAL-MEN. SS 101-102 of the original contractor to protect himself from misappro- priation of funds by his subcontractor. 44 Additional matter to foot-note 60. 45 Additional matter to foot-note 63. 46 lOla. Same. Extent of lien. The contractor's ma- terial-man is only entitled to be paid by the owner of the building when there is something owing and unpaid from the owner to the original contractor, under a valid statutory original contract. 47 Subcontractors' material-men are paid out of the fund be- fore their subcontractors; and if the fund is not sufficient, the loss, if any, must be borne by such subcontractors. 48 102. General obligations of material-men. Additional matter to foot-note 67. 49 44 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. '& D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 462. 94 Pac. Rep. 775. Kansas. The statute does not authorize a lien in favor of the subcontractor's material-man ("Subcontractor under a subcontractor," according to the decision): Home L. & S. Co. v. School Dist. (Kan., May 6, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 590; Nixon v. Cydon Lodge, 56 Kan. 298, 43 Pac. Rep. 236. 45 Personal judgment by contractor's material-men against con- tractor: California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524-526, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Colorado. See Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. Washington. Rasmussen v. Liming, 50 Wash. 184, 96 Pac. Rep. 1004. 46 "Supplies" broader term than "Materials": Michigan. Lawson v. Higgins, 1 Mich. 225. Washington. Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 102 Pac. Rep. 766. "Provisions and supplies": Washington. Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, supra., decided under an amended act, and explaining Laidlaw v. Portland R. Co., 42 Wash. 292, 84 Pac. Rep. 855. 47 California. McCue v. Jackman, 7 Cal. App. 703, 95 Pac. Rep. 673 (before amendment of statute in 1911). See 454 Treatise, and additional matter to foot-note 46 of Treatise, this Supplement, post. 48 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. Alpp. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 49 Damages for breach of contract to deliver material: See Fair- child-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern R. Co., 110 Pac. Rep. 951, 954. Bloom's Sup. 4 S 103 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 50 103. Same. Knowledge of terms of original contract. 50 so See { 71 Treatise and this Supplement, ante. California. See amendment of May 1, 1911, to $ 1183, Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. Idaho. Compare Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 26. Washington. Compare Rieflin v. Graf ton (Wash., June 1, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 851, 853. 51 PERSONS PERFORMING LABOR. 85 104-110 CHAPTER VII. PERSONS PERFORMING LABOR. 104. Scope of chapter. 1 105. Statutory provision. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 2. 3 106. Constitutional provision. 4 107. Laborer distinguished from contractor, subcon- tractor and material-man. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 5 108. Laborer does not create intermediate lien-holders. 6 109. Personal services. Additional matter to foot-note 7. 7 110. Definitions. Various kinds of laborers. Additional matter to foot-note 8. 8 1 See generally, "Labor for which lien is given," 130 et seq., this Supplement, post. 2 "Labor"; Sunday law: See City of Topeka v. Crawford, 78 Kan. 583, 96 Pac. Rep. 862. 3 California. See 1183, Code of Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. Employing unnaturalized aliens under Good Roads Law, Stats. & Amdts. 1907, p. 636, see City S. I. Co. v. Kroh, 158 Cal. 308, 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 941. * See 28-41, this Supplement, ante. 5 Oklahoma. "Person doing contract -work," see Ex parte Unger, 22 Okl., 755, 98 Pac. Rep. 999. Subcontractor's artisans and laborers have liens: Vandenberg v. P. T. Walton L. Co., 19 Okl., 169, 92 Pac. Rep. 149. e See "Original Contractor," 45-65; "Subcontractor," 66, 76, this Supplement, ante. 7 New Mexico. See Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710. Oregon. See Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, following Smallhouse v. Kentucky & M. G. & S. M. Co., 2 Mont. 443. See Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Oreg., June. 28, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 386. 8 Definitions of "artisan," "laborer," "other person," "workman," 111-113 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 52 111. Nature of labor for which lien is given. Additional matter to foot-note 9. 9 112. General rights of laborers. Similar to those of material-men. Laborers are not entitled to a personal judg- ment against the original contractor, in the absence of privity. 10 The subcontractor's laborers may file a claim of lien notwithstanding the fact that their subcontractor may have filed a claim of lien covering their claims. 11 It is said that the subcontractor's laborers are not affected by the ob- ligations which exist between the subcontractor and the original contractor. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 10. 12a 113. Same. Priorities. Additional matter to foot-note II. 13 "artificer," "mechanic," "ornftumnn": State v. City of Ottawa (Kan., February 11, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 391, 393. Waxhlngton. Blackamlth, wagon-maker, machinist, boiler-maker; plumber not machlnlMtt Modern P. & H. Co. v. American S. F. Co. (Wash., January 28, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 628. 9 In a mine: California. In development or working by aubtractlve procenaj watchman, roustabout, well-cleaner: Donaldson v. Orchard, 6 Cal. App. 641, 645, 92 Pac. Rep. 1046. Oregon. See Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 455. Cooking (or employer*, no lien: Durkheimer v. Copperopolls C. Co. (Oreg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, 898. Washington. Foreman; no lien: Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Greg., June 28, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 385, citing Oregon case, supra. Superintendent of building, lien allowed: MacDonald v. O'Shea, 58 Wash. 169, 108 Pac. Rep. 436, 439. Lathing, plaMterlng plumbing, lien allowed: Coghlan v. Quar- tararo (Cal. App., March 21, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 664. Logging: See Lane v. Lane-Potter L. Co., 40 Mont. 541, 107 Pac. Rep. 898. 10 California. Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 506, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; a. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. 11 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 12 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 462, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. i2 California. Regulating hour* of employment in mines and smelt- ers, under Stats. & Amdts. 1909, p. 279, c. 181, constitutional: Ex parte Martin, 106 Pac. Rep. 235. is California. See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 765: s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 53 PERSONS PERFORMING LABOR. S 114. Same. Material-man's laborers. Additional matter to foot-note 12. 14 115. Same. Death of employer. Additional matter to foot-note 14. 15 116. Same. Public work. Additional matter to foot-note 15. 16 117. General obligations of laborers. Additional matter to foot-note 16. 17 118. Same. Death of employer. Additional matter to foot-note 17. 18 i* California. See Wood, Curtis & Co. v. El Dorado L. Co., 153 Cal. 230, 94 Pac. Rep. 877. is "Employer of labor," in by-laws of Labor Union, see J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581, 98 Pac. Rep. 1027. See 118, Treatise, and this Supplement. 16 See 626, this Supplement, post. IT See 102 and 103, this Supplement, ants. is See 920, this Supplement, post. 119 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 54 CHAPTER VIII. ARCHITECTS. 119. Architects. Their regulation. Architecture is the art of building according to certain determined rules. 1 Municipal ordinances. The architect must have knowl- edge of the building laws, ordinances and regulations at the place where the structure is to be erected; otherwise, he will be held liable to the owner, if, through ignorance of the same, the employer is damaged. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 2. 3 1 Idaho. Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 84. Louisiana. Louisiana M. Co. v. Le Sassier, 52 La. Ann. 2070, 28 South. Rep. 217. 2 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 88 (an exhaustive decision as to the liability of architects, viewed from many points); Straus v. Buchman, 96 App. Div. 270, 89 N. Y. Supp. 226; 1 Bncyc. of Architecture, pp. 24-25, 37. See Hubert v. Aitken, 15 Daly 237, 2 N. Y. Supp. 711. Beams renting on stud-partitions, contrary to statute: See Straus v. Buchman, supra. Sanitary ventilations See Hubert v. Aitken, supra. Compliance with ordinance: See Nave v. McGrane, supra, pp. 87, 88. Regulations concerning excavations In streets: See Ex parte Wilcox (Cal. App., August 24, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 374. Stables; building ordinance of San Francisco, 320, construed, and provision with reference to cost over (1000, considered; plead- ings: Coon v. Board of Public Works, 7 Cal. App. 760, 95 Pac. Rep. 913. Building ordinance, relating to permits for constructing stables, held unreasonable: See Coon v. Board of Public Works, supra. Ordinance taxing "persons doing contract work," held invalid: Ex parte Unger, 22 Okl. 755, 98 Pac. Rep. 999. See State v. McNally, 45 La. Ann. 44, 12 South. Rep. 117. Building ordinance in chartered cities yields to general law, when conflicting: May v. Craig, 13 Cal. App. 368, 109 Pac. Rep. 842. See In re Hoffman, 155 Cal. 117, 99 Pac. Rep. 517. Fire limits, ordinance to prevent construction, alteration and en- largement of frame buildings within: Morton v. Wessinger (Oreg., February 14, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 7. 3 Cases In wbleh acts regulating and licensing various trades, busi- nesses and professions have been upheld as constitutional: Barberss State v. Walker, 48 Wash. 8, 92 Pac. Rep. 775; State v. Sharpless, 31 Wash. 191, 71 Pac. Rep. 737, 96 Am. St. Rep. 893. 55 ARCHITECTS. 120-123 120. Statutory provision. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 3. 5 121. Definition of architect. 6 Additional matter to foot-note 4. 7 122. Contract of unlicensed architect. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 8 123. Rights of architects. Where the agreement be- tween the owner and architect is for the construction of a building not to exceed a certain cost, and the architect plainly fails to prepare plans which come within the limita- tions of the cost of construction, the architect can not recover upon the contract, nor for the reasonable value of his serv- ices for drafting plans and specifications, even if the owner fails to return them, without using them. 9 A payment on account to the architect does not amount to an acceptance of the plans, when such payment is made be- fore it is demonstrated by the bids that the plans require Dentistry: State v. Thompson, 48 Wash. 683, 94 Pac. Rep. 667; In re Thompson, 36 Wash. 377, 78 Pac. Rep. 879. See State ex rel. Smith v. Board of Dental Exm'rs, 31 Wash. 492, 72 Pac. Rep. 110. Canning salmon: See State v. Hume, 52 Oreg. 1, 95 Pac. Rep. 808. Medicine and surgery: State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424, 30 Pac. Rep. 729. See Ex parte Bohanon (Gal. App., October 5, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 1039. Cases holding acts unconstitutional for various reasons: Horse-shoeing: Re Aubrey, 36 Wash. 308, 78 Pac. Rep. 900, 104 Am. St. Rep. 952. Plumbing: State ex rel. Richey v. Smith, 42 Wash. 237, 84 Pac. Rep. 851, 114 Am. St. Rep. 114, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.,) 674. 4 California. See An act to regulate the building and occupancy of tenement houses, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, c. 432, pp. 860 et seq., re- pealing Act approved April 16, 1909, Stats. & Amdts. 1909, p. 948. 5 California. See 1183, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. e See Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 93 Pac. Rep. 82, 85. Plans and specifications, see 1290, this Supplement, post. 7 An architect is an expert in carpentry, in cements, in mortar, in the strength of materials, in the art of constructing the walls, the floors, the staircases, the roofs: Hubert v. Aitken, 15 Daly 237, 2 N. Y. Supp. 711; Nave v. McGrane, supra, p. 88. 8 Compare contract of unlicensed material-man, 119, this Supple- ment, ante. 9 Washington. Graham v. Bell-Irving, 46 Wash. 607, 91 Pac. Rep. 8. See Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 83. 123-125 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 55 such a larger cost of construction ; and it seems that the owner may recover back any payment so made to the archi- tect. 10 124. Right to lien. Additional matter to foot-note 10. 11 125. Powers of architect. It is not in the power of the architect or engineer to change or waive terms of the con- tract between the owner and contractor, 12 unless such power is given by the contract itself. 13 Power to oversee the work or reject materials does not necessarily give authority to ac- cept the completed structure, or any part of it. 14 Under the ordinary provisions of construction contracts, and at least in the absence of express authority, the chief engineer has no authority to determine questions relating to the meaning and interpretation of the contract itself; but his powers are 10 Graham v. Bell-Irving, 46 Wash. 607, 91 Pac. Rep. 8. See Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 83. 11 California. See Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. New Mexico. See Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710. Oregon. See Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, explaining Willamette Falls T. & M. Co. v. Remlck, 1 Oreg. 169, and Culllns v. Flagstaff S. M. Co., 2 Utah 219, affirmed, 104 U. S. 176, 26 L. ed. 704. California. City S. I. Co. v. Kroh, 158 Cal. 308, 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 938. Colorado. Town of Sterling v. Hurd, 44 Colo. 436, 98 Pac. Rep. 174, 176. 12 Federal. See United States v. Walsh, 115 Fed. Rep. 697, 52 C. C. A. 419. Georgia. See Cannon v. Hunt, 113 Ga. 501, 38 S. E. Rep. 983. Illinois. See McAvoy v. Long, 13 111. 147; County of Cook v. Harms, 108 111. 151. New York. See Burke v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, 7 App. Div. 128, 40 N. Y. Supp. 82. Oregon. Williams v. Mount Hood Ry. & P. Co. (Oreg., August 3, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 490, 492; s. c., Ill Pac. Rep. 17. Pennsylvania. See Drhew v. Altoona, 121 Pa. 401, 420, 15 Atl. Rep. 636. Texas. See G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Henry, 65 Tex. 685. Am to withholding certificates arbitrarily, see 129, post, this Sup- plement. is Colorado. Hottel v. Poudre Valley R. Co., 41 Colo. 370, 92 Pac. Rep. 918, 919. 14 Colorado. Town of Sterling v. Hurd, 44 Colo. 436, 98 Pac. Rep. 174, 177. See Mercantile Trust Co. v. Hensey, 205 U. S. 298, 27 Sup. Ct. 535. 51 L. ed. 816. 57 ARCHITECTS. 125, 126 rather limited to determinations of estimates, classifications and character of work provided by the contract to be done and performed. 15 The architect has no power to accept bids or enter into a contract with the contractor, unless such power is given to him by the owner; and the mere fact that he draws plans and specifications and is authorized to have bids submitted to ascertain whether the cost of construction will exceed a certain figure does not give the architect authority to enter into such contract, particularly where the owner refuses to construct by reason of the bids exceeding that figure. 16 126. Relation between owner and architect. 17 While the relation between the owner and the architect is not con- fidential in the sense that communications between them are privileged, yet there is a position of trust occupied by the architect, which he may easily take advantage of, if he so desires. The owner does not know the rules of architecture ; he therefore employs the architect who makes the plans in accordance with them. 18 The owner may not know all of the facts necessary to be imparted to the architect to enable him to prepare the proper plans and specifications, and it is the duty of the architect to obtain from the owner just that information and the facts he requires in order to prepare the proper plans and specifications. Hence, if the plans do not fulfill the owner's intentions because the architect did not have sufficient information, it is the fault of the architect in not obtaining such information, as he should know better than the owner just what facts and information are needed to intelligently draw the required plans and specifications. Much of the trouble between contractors and owners arises is Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 795, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. 16 Oregon. Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. B. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. 17 Architect constructing building upon a percentage basis, as com- mon law agent of owner and not as independent contractor, see Loma Prieta L. Co. v. Hinton, 12 Cal. App. 766, 108 Pac. Rep. 528. is Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 84; Louisiana M. Co. v. Le Sassier, 52 La. Ann. 2070, 28 South. Rep. 217. 126-129 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 53 from the fact that the plans and specifications are not definite and certain. As a rule, the owner knows nothing about the details of the contract that the contractor ought to sign in order that the owner may be protected, as this is usually left almost wholly to the architect. 19 Dual relation of architect. While the architect or engineer may stand in the relation of umpire in some of his aspects, in other aspects he may stand in the relation of the agent for the owner; and the latter is so when the owner consults him to determine the character of the material which should go into the building, and in this respect he is the owner's agent. 20 127. Same. Agent of owner. The architect employed by the owner upon a percentage basis, the architect drawing the plans and specifications and hiring a superintendent to take charge of the hiring of the labor and purchasing of material and letting subcontracts, the owner to pay and advance from time to time money needed to pay therefor, is the common law agent of the owner. 21 128. Architect as subcontractor. 22 129. Obligations of Architect. Duty to inspect work. It is the duty of the architect or engineer to inspect the work, as it proceeds, when under the contract he is made arbiter or umpire. But the contractor has no cause for com- plaint when the absence of the architect from the work was caused by the fault of the contractor, and as to him such ab- sence is excusable. 23 10 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 85. 20 Washington. Camp v. Neufelder, 49 Wash. 426, 95 Pac. Rep. 640. See 127, this Supplement, post. 21 California. Loma Prieta L. Co. v. Hinton, 12 Cal. App. 766, 768, 108 Pac. Rep. 528. Washington. Architect, as owner's agent, giving notice to con- tractor's surety of breach of contract, see Martin v. Empire State S. Co., 53 Wash. 290, 101 Pac. Rep. 876. 22 See Architect as contractor, this Supplement, 126, ante. 23 Colorado. Town of Sterling v. Kurd, 44 Colo. 436, 98 Pac. Rep. 174, 176. See Duty as arbiter, 129a et seq., this Supplement, post. 59 ARCHITECTS. 12 g a 129a. Same. Duty to act fairly and honestly as arbiter or umpire. Stipulated certificates or approval of work by the architect or engineer should not be withheld arbitrarily, 24 nor unreasonably, 25 nor because of bias against either party. 26 In making his estimates or giving his certificates, the archi- tect or engineer must act honestly, 27 and not refuse to make inquiries nor neglect to inform himself from proper sources as to the facts in dispute ; nor should be act wholly on infor- mation received from other persons. 28 He should inform himself as to the condition of the matters or works he is to determine upon, 29 and the nature of the work or classifica- tion to which it applies. 30 He should not fail to make a personal examination and exercise his independent judg- ment, 31 and he should not act in such manner that there may be imputed to him actual or constructive fraud. 32 24 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 785, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Montana. Piper v. Murray (Mont., April 22, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 671. Utah. Midgley v. Campbell Bldg. Co. (Utah, January 11, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 820. Washington. Sweatt v. Bonne (Wash., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 617; Camp v. Neuf elder, 49 Wash. 426, 95 Pac. Rep. 640. 25 California. Coplew v. Durand, 153 Cal. 278, 281, 95 Pac. Rep. 38. 26 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 795, 796, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. 27 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., supra. Kentucky. See Cummings v. Bradford, 22 S. W. Rep. 548. Washington. Pinickneff v. Johnson, 54 Wash. 156, 102 Pac. Rep. 1047; Camp. v. Neuf elder, 49 Wash. 426, 95 Pac. Rep. 640. See Mc- Kivor v. Savage (Wash., September 19, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 811, 812. 28 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 795, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Utah. Midgley v. Campbell Bldg. Co. (Utah, January 4, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 820. 29 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., supra. 30 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., supra. Washington. Pinickneff v. Johnson, 54 Wash. 156, 102 Pac. Rep. 1047. si Utah. Midgley v. Campbell Bldg. Co. (Utah, January 4, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 820. Washington. Use v. Aetna I. Co., 55 Wash. 487, 104 Pac. Rep. 787; Camp v. Neufelder, 49 Wash. 426, 95 Pac. Rep. 640. See Van Hook v. Burns, 10 Wash. 22, 38 Pac. Rep. 763; McDonald v. Lewis, 18 Wash. 300, 51 Pac. Rep. 387; Long v. Pierce County, 22 Wash. 354, 61 Pac. Rep. 142. 32 California. See City S. I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419, 431, 432, 101 Pac. Rep. 308. 129a MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. In extensive works, the chief engineer can not measure every yard of earth and material cut and classify the same personally, and he must in some measure rely upon informa- tion derived from other sources ; 33 but in every case the decision of the chief engineer, as arbiter under the contract, must be the result of a fair and deliberate judgment ; and as his functions in this regard are of a quasi-judicial character, they can not be delegated to any one else ; but he must hear and discover the facts and take such steps as will enable him to get in possession of the facts in controversy in order to render such judgment. 34 For him to rely entirely upon the statements and judgment of a subordinate, whom he knows or has reason to believe is prejudiced against the contractor is a species of fraud which the law will not tolerate. 35 Colorado. Town of Sterling v. Kurd, 44 Colo. 436, 98 Pac. Rep. 174, 176. See Empson P. Co. v. Clawson (Colo.), 95 Pac. Rep. 546. Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co. 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 795,' 92 Pac. Rep. 980. See Spaulding v. Coeur d'Alene Ry. Co., 5 Idaho 528, 61 Pac. Rep. 408. Illinois. See Mantonya v. Reilly, 83 111. App. 275, affirmed 84 111. 183. Michigan. See Lamson v. City of Marshall, 133 Mich. 250, 95 N. W. Rep. 78. Montana. See Piper v. Murray (Mont., April 22, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 672. Waahlngrton. Use v. Aetna I. Co. 55 Wash. 487, 104 Pac. Rep. 787; Sweatt v. Bonne (Wash., September 3, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 617. See McKivor v. Savage (Wash., September 19, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 811, 812; Craig v. Geddis, 4 Wash. 391, 30 Pac. Rep. 396; Schmidt v. North Yakima, 12 Wash. 121, 40 Pac. Rep. 890; Dickerman v. Reeder, 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. WlHconain. See Seibert v. Roth, 118 Wis. 250, 95 N. W. Rep. 119. See also Davis v. King, 66 Conn. 465, 34 Atl. Rep. 107, 50 Am. St. Rep. 104; Edwards v. Hartshorn, 72 Kan. 19, 82 Pac. Rep. 520, 1 L. R. A, (N. S.), 1050; Martinsburg & Potomac R. Co. v. March, 114 U. S. 549, 5 Sup. Ct. 1035, 29 L. ed. 255; Williams v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 112 Mo. 463, 20 S. W. Rep. 631, 34 Am. St. Rep. 403; Mundy v. L. & N. R. Co., 67 Fed. Rep. 633, 14 C. C. A. 583; Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Scholes. 14 Ind. App. 524, 43 N. E. Rep. 156, 56 Am. St. Rep. 307, and notes. 33 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. T89, 797, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Xew York. See Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 31, 22 N. E. Rep. 276, 15 Am. St. Rep. 376. MiiMNnrliunettH. Palmer v. Clark, 106 Mass. 373. 34 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho, 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 797, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. 35 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 797, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. ARCHITECTS. 129b. Same. Duties in general. The architect by his employment as such undertakes to possess reasonable skill, expertness and knowledge in the things he is required to know, and to exercise reasonable care and diligence in per- forming the services he undertakes to perf.orm and in super- vising the work of construction. 36 The rule applicable generally to members of learned pro- fessions is equally applicable here. These obligations in- clude the skill and knowledge necessary to the planning of structures, qualities and strength of materials, their weight and relationship to the various operations to be performed by the many trades represented in building, and a knowledge of all other matters directly related to drawing plans and specifications. 37 The architect must furnish the owner with preliminary sketches and estimates in order to avoid mutual mistakes; also, detailed and completed plans and specifications, and, if requested, estimates of the quantities and costs of material, a proper contract to be entered into by the contractor, where the architect undertakes to draw such contract, a proper form of bond, proper instructions to bidders and a traverse section. The plans and specifications, contract and bond should be so specific that there can be no valid contro- versy as to any matters therein contained. 38 It has already been shown that it is the duty of the architect to see that the plans and specifications embody the intentions and require- ments of the owner and to secure the necessary information from the owner to enable him to make definite such inten- tions and requirements. 39 Where the intention of the owner contemplates the en- largement of the structure, or the addition of other stories at a future time, it is necessary for the architect to inquire 36 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 85; Straus v. Buchman, 96 App. Div. 270, 89 N. Y. Supp. 226; Hubert v. Aitken, 15 Daly 237, 2 N. Y. Supp. 711. See, also, Klnney v. Mami- towa County, 135 Fed. Rep. 491, 68 C. C. A. 203. 37 Nave v. McGrane, supra., quoting from Vol. 1, Cyclopaedia of Architecture, pp. 350-351. 38 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 84. 39 See 126, this Supplement, ante. 129b 129c MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 2 as to the number of the stories to be added, and at least generally as to their purpose and arrangement, and means of access from one to another, so that the plumbing, heating, lighting, furnace flues, stairways and interior arrangements generally, as well as the foundations and walls, may be de- signed for strength and safety, to practically carry out the future intentions of the owner. 40 129c. Same. Plans and specifications. Duty to pre- pare. The duty to prepare plans and specifications so as to carry out the intention of the owner has been already al- luded to. 41 Such plans and specifications must be suf- ficiently specific to prevent any legitimate controversy con- cerning the kinds and qualities and quantities of materials to be used, or the character of the workmanship. Definition of ' ' plan. " A " plan, ' ' when applied to a build- ing, is an architectural drawing representing a horizontal section of the various floors or stories of the building, the disposition of the apartments and walls, with the situation of the doors, windows, in fact, represents the different stories as they are to be built, and the whole as it will appear when completed. 42 Definition of "specifications." Specifications in architec- ture embrace, as understood by the profession, not only the dimensions and mode of construction, but a description of every piece of material, its kind, length, breadth, and thick- ness, and the manner of joining the separate parts together. 43 "The word specifications when applied to a building means 40 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 85. 41 See S 129b, this Supplement, ante. 42 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 85; State v. Kendall, 15 Neb. 262, 18 N. W. 85. 43 Bouvier defines them as "a particular and detailed account of a thing"; Gwilt: "They are an accurate description of the materials and work to be used and performed in the execution of a building." Worcester's Diet.: "A written instrument containing a good and minute description, account, or enumeration of particulars": Gilbert v. United States, 1 Ct. Cl. 28, citing Encyc. of Architecture, p. 595, par. 19; quoted in Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 85. 63 ARCHITECTS. 12 g Cj a specific and detailed statement of the materials to be used in the building and the manner of performing the work. 44 Requisites of plans. "The plans when completed should (1) conform with the instructions given to the architect; (2) comply with all laws which may be applicable; (3) not in- fringe the rights of any third person; and (4) be in accord- ance with all rules of the architect's science and art. It must be remembered that the employer's mere approval will not be an excuse for faults, of which the employer is not a competent judge." 45 Requisites of Specifications. Specifications must be so definite as not to leave the quality of the material or of the workmanship to the mutatory whims or caprice of the super- vising architect or the contractor; the plans and , specifica- tions should be complete, definite and specific. 46 129d. Same. Duty as to protection of adjoining property. Where the law requires the same, provision should be made in the specifications for protecting the walls and foundations of the adjoining buildings and the other lines of the adjoining properties from caving; for, if no provision is made therefor, the question might .arise as to whether the contractor is required to make adequate protection therefor, estimated in the contract price, or the owner. 47 44 State v. 'Kendall, 15 Neb. 262, 18 N. W. Rep. 85; Nave v. McGrane, supra. 45 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 85, quoting 1 Encyc. of Architecture, bottom page 362. 46 Nave v. McGrane, supra, p. 84. 47 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910, 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 86. Specifications : As to concrete work and composition of concrete; method of meas- uring cement, bags and barrels, loose or compact; cement mortar; it is not sufficient to state that one barrel of cement shall be used for so many barrels of sand; specification held insufficient: See Nave v. McGrane,- supra, p. 86. As to foundation and masonry below ground; "slushed solid with good lime and sand mortar"; held insufficient, under an ordinance and authorities on architecture: See Nave v. McGrane, supra, pp. 86, 87. Am to electric wiring; held insufficient on many grounds: See Nave v. McGrane, supra, p. 87. National Electric Code, used by fire underwriters, held insufficient, as simply formulating general principles according to which electric work should be done, and not specific: See Nave v. McGrane, supra, p. 87. 129e-129h MECHANICS* LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 54 129e. Various duties architects must perform. Traverse section. The first question that occurs to the owner is the cost of construction ; and he generally requests the architect to compute the cost of the several items going into the con- struction of the building so as to ascertain the total cost. The traverse section is one of the necessary drawings to ac- company the specifications. 48 129f. Same. Instructions to bidders. The architect should prepare proper instructions to the bidders to prevent mistakes and misunderstandings; and the architect usually furnishes forms of proposals for bidders to permit com- petitive bidders to do the same work in the same manner. 49 129g. Same. Bids. Proposals for bids should be ac- companied by the proposed contract, particularly where they, or the plans and specifications submitted therewith, refer to any contract, in order that the acceptance of the bid by the owner may not result in a mere acceptance of a proposition to enter at a later date into a contract, the terms of which are not fixed and definite. 50 If 'the plans and specifications are not definite and certain as to the kinds and qualities of material, the class of work- manship, and the like, the bid to construct the building will only indicate a willingness to negotiate further in regard to the matters not specified, and its acceptance will express a like willingness; and neither party will be bound, as their minds have not met, unless they subsequently agree upon the contract. 51 129h. Same. The contract. Where the architect un- dertakes to draw up the building contract, he impliedly Am to plumbing: and heatings specifications held insufficient: See Nave v. McGrane, supra, p. 88. 48 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 86. 49 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 84. 00 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 85. See Gill Mfg. Co. v. Hind (A. C.), 18 Fed. Rep. 673; Shepard v. Car- penter, 54 Minn. 153, 55 N. W. Rep. 906. 01 Nave v. McGrane, supra. 65 ARCHITECTS. 129h-129j agrees that he possesses reasonable skill in drafting the instrument such as is possessed by those in the. legal pro- fession. The contract should show the time of beginning and completion of the work, the dates and rates of payment, and the kind and amount of indemnity insurance to be carried, and other necessary details, all of which should be definite and specific and expressed in proper legal form. 52 The contract or specifications should provide for the cer- tificate of inspection by the architect, and if insurance should be carried pending completion of the building, provisions for bearing loss in case of destruction, for delays, for modifica- tion of the plans or specifications as the work progresses, and stipulations regarding changes and extras. 53 129i. Same. Bond. A proper form of bond should be provided by the architect, if he undertakes to draw up the building contract, so that the owner may comply with any law requiring the same and that the owner may know what security he is to have against liens and damages and in order that the bidders may understand to what expense they will be put by this item, and the liability that they may incur. 54 129j. Same. Liability of architect. For failure of the architect to comply with his legal duty with regard to the plans and specifications, bond or contract, the architect is liable to the owner, and he can not under ordinary circum- stances recover from the owner for the preparation of the same, particularly where such plans are not used by the owner. 55 The burden of proving their inadequacy rests upon the owner; but the testimony of contractors to the effect that certain plans and specifications are sufficiently definite and specific to enable them to bid on the construction will not 52 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 84, 85. See, generally, Building Contracts, 193-360, Treatise, and this Supplement. 53 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 88. 54 Nave v. McGrane, supra, p. 84. 55 Nave v. McGrane, supra. Bloom's Sup. 5 129J MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. QQ be taken as against the plans and specifications themselves, when they clearly show that they are not definite and cer- tain and that they are not in conformity with the recognized authorities on engineering, contracts and specifications and architecture; and this is especially so where the plans and specifications will permit a bidder or contractor to figure on first-class material and workmanship and are not explicit enough to prevent his using inferior material or per- forming poor workmanship in the construction of the build- ing. 56 There is always an implied contract on the part of the architect that the work will be suitable for the purpose for which it is prepared; and, apart from questions of public policy, this principle will prevent him from recovering upon plans and specifications prepared in violation of law, unless he was directed so to prepare them by the owner. 57 56 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 84. 87 Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 88; Straus v. Buchman, 96 App. Div. 270, 89 N. Y. Supp. 226. LABOR FOR WHICH A LIEN IS GIVEN. SS 130-135 CHAPTER IX. LABOR FOR WHICH A LIEN IS GIVEN. 130. Scope of chapter. Additional matter to foot-note 2. 1 131. Statutory provisions, generally. Structure. First clause. Additional matter to foot-note 3. 2 132. Same. Mines. Second clause. 3 133. Same. Grading, etc. 4 134. Same. Three grand divisions. Generally. 5 135. Structures and mines. In general. 6 1 Oregon. See,' generally, Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 455. 2 California. Under the amendment of 1911 to 1183, Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, p. 1313, structures and mines are placed in separate clauses, and a clearer segregation, to some extent, at least, may be observed. 3 California. Mines are placed in a separate paragraph from the objects enumerated as structures in the amendment of 1183, Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, p. 1313. 4 California. 1191, Code of Civ. Proc., remains untouched by the amendment of 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, p. 1313. Definition of "grading": See Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 612, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. Idaho. See Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573; s. c., 95 Pac. Rep. 827. Washington. Lien for clearing land: See Owen v. Casey, 48 Wash. 673, 94 Pac. Rep. 473. 5 California. The three grand divisions still survive under the amendment of 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, p. 1313. 6 California. Under the amendment to 1183, Code Civ. Proc., of 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., the labor for which a lien is given has been extended, both in the case of mines and struc- tures; and liens are now expressly provided, which previously were in doubt or denied. 136-142 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. gg 136. Importance of fixing clause under which case falls. 7 137. Same. Classes not mutually exclusive. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 5. 9 138. Definition of labor ' ' bestowed. ' ' Additional matter to foot-note 7. 10 139. Grading and other work under 1191. Generally. Additional matter to foot-note 10. n 140. Classes, how discussed at this time. 12 141. "Improvement" defined. Refers to object. Additional matter to foot-note 12. 13 142. Structures, and grading and other work, under 1101. 7 California. It still remains important to fix the clause under which a particular case falls, for some purposes, under the amend- ments to the lien law of 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. fi California. The amendments of 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., have not expressly indicated the position occupied by structures erected in mines or mining 1 claims, so far as all of the provisions of the statute are concerned. o Idaho. See Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. 10 California. Before the amendment of 1183, Code of Civ. Proc. in 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., one furnishing horses and harness to the contractor did not "bestow" labor, under the cir- cumstances of the case: Wood, Curtis & Co. v. El Dorado L. Co., 153 Cal. 230, 94 Pac. Rep. 877, distinguishing Macomber v. Bigelow, 126 Cal. 914, 58 Pac. Rep. 312; but see 1183, as amended, allowing liens to "teamsters and draymen." 11 Idaho. See Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. 12 See i 61 et seq., 259 et seq., 269 et seq., 286 et seq. and 315 et seq., this Supplement. 13 Arizona. See Schley v. Vail (Ariz.), 95 Pac. Rep. 113 (in pre- ferred rights to leased land). Federal. "Improve," "build or rebuild": See Healey I. M. Co. V. Green (C. C., N. C.), 181 Fed. Rep. 890, 893. Idaho. See Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho, 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. Montana. "Improvement," in water rights law, compare Helena W. Co. v. Settles, 37 Mont. 237, 95 Pac. Rep. 838. Oklahoma. "Improvement of land," see Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409. Oregon. "Improvement," In mining laws See Fredericks v. Klauser, 52 Oreg. 110, 96 Pac. Rep. 679. 69 LABOR FOR WHICH A LIEN IS GIVEN. | 142-145 Additional matter to foot-note 14. 14 143. Structures. Liens allowed. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 21. 16 144. ' ' Construction, alteration, addition to, or repair. ' ' Additional matter to foot-note 22. 17 145. Same. Importance of determination. 18 14 Idaho. See Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. is California. Class of persons allowed liens upon structures was enlarged by amendment of 1183, Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., so as to include those "bestowing skill or other necessary services." Idaho. Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 577, s. c., 95 Pac. Rep. 827. Oregon. See Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, explaining Willamette Falls T. & M. Co. v. Remick, 1 Oreg. 169, and Cullins v. Flagstaff S. M. Co., 2 Utah' 219, affirmed 104 U. S. 176, 26 L. ed. 704. Washington. Superintendent of structure allowed lien: MacDon- ald v. O'Shea, 58 Wash. 169, 108 Pac. Rep. 436, 439. 16 California. The amendment to 1183, Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., specifically provides for furnishing teams, and for liens for teamsters and draymen. Oklahoma. Lien for hauling; stone used In a structure: See Al- berti v. Moore, 20 Okl., 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. IT California. "Repair and alteration," compare Grosse v. Barman, 9 Cal. App. 650, 100 Pac. Rep. 348. "Constructed and being; constructed," in irrigation law: See Stowell v: Rialto Irr. Dist., 155 Cal. 215, 100 Pac. Rep. 248. "Construction" work on ship: See Jensen v. Dorr (Cal. Sup.), 116 Pac. Rep. 553, s. c., 157 Cal. 437, 108 Pac. Rep. 320. "Construction" in public utilities ordinance: See Platt v. City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Sup.), 110 Pac. Rep. 4, 11. Idaho. "Repair and improve"; "new construction"; definition: See Nampa v. Nampa & M. Irr. Dist. (Idaho), 115 Pac. Rep. 979. Kansas. See Potter v. Conley (Kan., January 7, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 608, 610. Oregon. "Construction and repair work": See Crane Co. v. Ellis (Oreg., March 28, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 475, 476. Washington. "Construction, alteration, improvement or repair": See Stetson & Post L. Co. v. W. & J. Sloane Co. (Wash., December 12, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 248, 249, 250. is See "Material-man," 77 to 103, this Supplement, ante. California. But see amendment of 1183, Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 146-149 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 7Q 146. Character of alteration. Additional matter to foot-note 25. 19 147. Distinction between ' ' alteration ' ' and ' ' repair. ' ' 20 Additional matter to foot-note 26. 21 148. Same. Alteration. Erection. Additional matter to foot-note 27. 22 149. Work in mines and mining claims. Second clause. A lien is not given for any and every work that may be done upon or about a mining claim, but only if the work is done in the development thereof or .in working thereon by the subtractive process, 23 where the statute so provides. Additional matter to foot-note 28. 24 Additional matter to foot-note 29. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 30. 26 10 See I 44, thus Supplement, ante. 20 California. "Repair and alteration": Compare Grosse v. Bar- man, 9 Cal. App. 650, 100 Pac. Rep. 348. "Repair" defined In reclamation law: See Reclamation Dist. v. Clark, 155 Cal. 1091, 100 Pac. Rep. 1091. 21 Structure destroyed; reconstruction, whether "alteration" or "re- pair," or entirely new structure: See Pusey v. Pennsylvania P. Mills (C. C., Pa.), 173 Fed. Rep. 634, 640. 22 "Improve," "build or rebuild": See Healey I. M. Co. v. Green (C. C., N. C.), 181 Fed. Rep. 890, 893. Reconstruction, whether alteration or repair, or new structure: See Pusey v. Pennsylvania P. Mills (C. C., Pa.), 173 Fed. Rep. 634, 640. "Repair and Improve"; "new construction": See City of Nampa v. Nampa & M. Irr. Dist. (Idaho), 115 Pac. Rep. 979; Morton v. Wessin- ger (Oreg., February 14, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 7. "Alteration, Improvement, repair": See Stetson & Post L. Co. v. W. & J. Sloane Co. (Wash., December 12, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 248, 249, 250. 23 California. Donaldson v. Orchard C. O. Co., 6 Cal. App. 641, 645, 92 Pac. Rep. 1046. 24 Oregon. "Labor upon a mine": See Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, 897. New Mexico. Lien allowed for actual manual labor In limestone quarry, and on lime kiln In mine: Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604. 25 Oregon. See Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 455. 26 Blasting:, lien allowed: James v. Beebe (Wash., July 18, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1032. 71 LABOR FOR WHICH A LIEN IS GIVEN ^49^ ] 5Q Additional matter to foot-note 31. 27 150. Same. Liens allowed. Additional matter to foot-note 33. 28 Additional matter to foot-note 34. 29 Additional matter to foot-note 35. 30 Additional matter to foot-note 36. 31 Additional matter to foot-note 37. 32 27 Alaska. See Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752, 755. California. Development of water: See Garvey W. Co. v. Hunt- ington L. & I. Co., 154 Cal. 232, 97 Pac. Rep. 428. Montana. See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. & M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 357. New Mexico. Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 100 Pac. Rep. 603. 28 Oregon. Extracting: ore and breaking; ground, lien allowed: Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Oreg!, June 28, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 386. 29 New Mexico. Superintendent of construction of mill in mine, lien allowed: Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710, distinguishing New Mexico cases cited in Treatise to this note. Overseeing; laborers with whom he worked, lien allowed: Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co., 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604 (under Comp. L. 1897, 2221). Oregon. Other-wise, when not accompanied by manual labor; thus, superintendent and general manager of a mine is not person perform- ing labor upon a mine within meaning of 5668, B. & C. Comp., as ' amended by Sess. Laws 1907, p. 294, which applies only to those per- forming physical labor; and such superintendent has no lien: Durk- heimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895. See also Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Oreg., June 28, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 386; but a foreman who does general work, made things, framed timbers, and looked after work on mine as foreman, and took part in the erection of a mill, entitled to a lien: Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co., supra. 30 Montana. Lien allowed for repair work on tunnel, cutting cord- wood for fuel; for construction of mill and in operating it; building roadway to mill, etc.: Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. 31 Oklahoma. Development of coal mine, "improvement of land," and lien now allowed under Sess. Laws 1909, c. 23, art 8, 1, p. 886, for development labor, and also for taking out coal; previously lien not allowed: Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409, 413. 32 Kansas. Lien for labor in discovery and obtaining oil from ground: See Phillips v. Springfield C. O. Co., 76 'Kan. 783, 92 Pac. Rep. 1119; Martin v. Springfield C. O. Co., 77 Kan. 851, 92 Pac. Rep. 1119, distinguishing Eastern O. Co. v. McEvoy, 75 Kan. 515, 89 Pac. Rep. 1048. 150-157 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 72 Additional matter to foot-note 38. 33 Additional matter to foot-note 39. 34 151. Same. Notice of non-responsibility. Tunnel. 35 152. Same. Drifting. 36 i 153. Same. Running tunnel. Additional matter to foot-note 42. 37 154. Same. Shaft. Mining instrumentalities. 38 155. Same. Watchman of idle mine. Additional matter to foot-note 44. 39 156. Grading, etc., under 1191. Additional matter to foot-note 45. 40 Additional matter to foot-note 46. 41 Additional matter to foot-note 47. 42 157. Same. Work not enforceable under this section. 43 33 New Mexico. Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co., 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 605. 34 Montana. "Repair and alteration of mine": See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. Oklahoma. Compare Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409. 35 See Notice of non-responsibility, 469 et seq., this Supplement, post. See I 153, matter to foot-note of Treatise 42. Tunnel: See 150, this Supplement. 36 See matter to foot-note 42 of Treatise, 153, this Supplement. 37 Washington. Compare Price v. Clallam C. Co. (Wash., Novem- ber 30, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 893. 38 Montana. See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. so California. Donaldson v. Orchard C. O. Co., 6 Cal. App. 641, 645, 92 Pac. Rep. 1046. \.-\i Mexico. Preparing; mine *< that It can be left without care- taker, oo lien: Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co., 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604. 40 California. Definition of "grading": See Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609. 612, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. 41 California. Compare McQuiddy v. Worswlck S. P. Co. (Cal. Sup., May 26, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 67. 42 California. See Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. 43 California. | 1191, Code Civ. Proc., was not amended in 1911. 73 LABOR FOR WHICH A LIEN IS GIVEN. SS 158-162 158. Same. Meaning of "improves," "improve- ment." 44 Additional matter to foot-note 51. 45 159. Same. Relation to work on structures. 46 160. Same. Liens allowed. Additional matter to foot-note 53. 47 Additional matter to foot-note 54. 48 Additional matter to foot-note 56. 49 161. Labor for which lien is not given in any event. Additional matter to foot-note 58. 50 162. Same. Preliminary work. Additional matter to foot-note 59. 51 Additional matter to foot-note 60. 52 44 See notes 141, this Supplement. "Improvement of land," compare Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl., 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409. "Improve," "build or rebuild," see Healey I. M. Co. v. Green (C. C., N. C.), 181 Fed. Rep. 890, 893. "Repair and Improve," compare City of Nampa v. Nampa & M. Irr. Dist. (Idaho, May 13, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 979. 45 Idaho. Rules regarding ownership of sidewalks by owner of abutting property in support of lien on abutting property: See Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. 46 California. 1191, Code Civ. Proc., was not amended in 1911. 47 Washington. Grading and filling in street in front of property, lien allowed: Hall v. Cowen, 51 Wash. 295, 98 Pac. Rep. 670. 48 Definition of "block": See Slater v. Fire & P. Board, 43 Colo. 225, 96 Pac. Rep. 554; Town of Fruita v. Williams, 33 Colo. 157, 80 Pac. Rep. 132; Harrison v. People, 195 111. 466, 63 N. E. Rep. 191. 49 Idaho. Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399 (under 5510, 5512, Rev. Codes). See 158, this Supplement, ante. 50 Oregon. Superintendence: See Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Oreg., June 28, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 386. See 162-165, this Supplement, post. 51 Idaho. Lien allowed for general railroad construction, shoveling, blasting, clearing sagebrush from railroad right of way, and com- pensation for use of tools: Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho, 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 95 Pac. Rep. 827. 52 California. Roustabout and well cleaner on mine: See Donald- son v. Orchard C. O. Co., 6 Cal. App. 641, 645, 92 Pac. Rep. 1046. New Mexico. Taking care of horses for owner of mine: Gray V. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604. 163-165 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 74 163. Same. Teaming for material-man. Additional matter to foot-note 61. 53 164. Same. Material-man's laborer. 54 165. Same. Test, legitimate connection with work of mine. Additional matter to foot-note 64. 55 Oregon. Persons working In a boarding house or cooking for em- ployers at mine have no lien under 5668, B. & C. Comp., since amend- ment of 1907; before that amendment, lien was allowed: Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg., November 15, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, 898. Washington. Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869. 102 Pac. Rep. 766. 53 California. See Wood Curtis & Co. v. El Dorado L. Co., 153 Cal. 230, 94 Pac. Rep. 877. See 1183, Code Civ. Proc., as amended 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 54 See 46, this Supplement, ante. , 55 Montana. See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. New Mexleo. Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603. 604. But see 150, this Supplement, ante. 75 ON WHAT LABOR MUST BE DONE. 166-171 CHAPTER X. OBJECT ON WHICH LABOR MUST BE PERFORMED. 166. Distinction between "object" and "property. 1 Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 2. 2 167. Constitutional provision. 3 168. Division of the statute. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 4 169. Statutory provisions. Additional matter to foot-note 6. 5 170. Definition of terms used herein. 6 171. Same. "Improvement." "Structure." Additional matter to foot-note 10. 7 Additional matter to foot-note II. 8 1 Colorado. Right to use water for irrigation, real estate: Davis v. Randall, 44 Colo. 488, 99 Pac. Rep. 322, 324. Montana. Definition of "property": See Helena W. Co. v. Settles, 37 Mont. 237, 95 Pac. Rep. 838. 2 California. Mining claim on public land, property: Van Ness V. Rooney (Cal. Sup., June 6, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 392, 394. 3 See 28-41, this Supplement, ante. 4 California. The general division of objects remains the same under the amendment of the mechanics' lien law of 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See 134 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 5 California. The objects under the first and second clauses of 1183, Code of Civ. Proc., as amended in 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., have not been changed, with reference to structures and mines and mining claims; and 1191, with reference to grading, etc., remains the same. 6 See 166, this Supplement, ante. 7 Oregon. Compare Alderson v. Lee, 52 Oreg. 92, 96 Pac. Rep. 234, 236. Washington. Compare State v. Puget Sound & G. H. Ry. Co., 103 Pac. Rep. 80. 8 Arizona. Definition of "improvements": See Schley v. Vail, 95 Pac. Rep. 113. 172-177 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 75 172. Structure on a mine. Oil well. Additional matter to foot-note 14. 9 173. "Structures," in general. First clause of statute. Additional matter to foot-note 15. 10 174. Structures not enumerated in statute. 11 175. Structures enumerated in statute. Buildings. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 12 176. Same. Bridges. Additional matter to foot-note 29. 13 177. Same. Aqueduct, ditch and flume. Additional matter to foot-note 31. 14 Montana. Definition of "Improvements": See Helena W. Co. v. Settles, 37 Mont. 237, 95 Pac. Rep. 838. Oklahoma. "Improvement of Iand"i Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409. See Bates v. Harte, 124 Ala. 427. 26 South. Rep. 898, 82 Am. St. Rep. 186. See 172, this Supplement, post. 9 Oregon. Compare Alderson v. Lee, 52 Oreg. 92, 96 Pac. Rep. 234, 236; Fredericks v. Klauser, 52 Greg. 110, 96 Pac. Rep. 679. 10 Idaho. "Other structure*" In mine; "other Improvements, afore- said": See Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. Oregon. Compare Alderson v. Lee, 52 Oreg. 992, 96 Pac. Rep. 234, 236. 11 Colorado. Definition of embankment and dam: See Garnet D. & R. Co. v. Sampson, 110 Pac. Rep. 79, 83. 12 Kansas. Definition of "building": State v. Landers, 81 Kan. 836, 106 Pac. Rep. 1029. Oregon. "Frame building" In San Francisco ordinance; held synonymous with wooden building: Morton v. Wessinger (Oreg., Feb- ruary 14, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 7. See Ward v. City of Murphysboro, 77 111. App. 549. Washington. "Building" not Including basement in building ordi- nance: See Davis v. City of Walla Walla, 52 Wash. 453, 100 Pac. Rep. 981, 982. is California. See 2712, Pol. Code, relating to repair and mainte- nance of bridges, amended Stats. & Amdts. 1911, c. 82. "Wharf": See Bankers T. Co. V. T. A. Gillespie Co. (C. C. A.), 181 Fed. Rep. 448. 14 Colorado. Lien on ditch: Hottel v. Poudre Valley R. Co., 41 Colo. 370, 92 Pac. Rep. 918. Idaho. "Canal," lien on: Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Conduit, not strictly ditch or canal: See Idaho P. & T. Co. v. Stephenson, 16 Idaho 418, 101 Pac. Rep. 821, 824. 77 ON WHAT LABOR MUST BE DONE. 178-182 178. Same. Well. Additional matter to foot-note 32. 15 179. Same. Tunnel. Additional matter to foot-note 35. 16 180. Same. Machinery. Additional matter to foot-note 37. 17 Additional matter to foot-note 38. 18 181. Same. Railroad. Additional matter to foot-note 39. 19 182. Mining claims, and real property worked as a mine. Second clause of statute. Additional matter to foot-note 41. 20 Additional matter to foot-note 42. 21 Oregon. Locks of canal, highway: See State v. Portland G. E. Co., 52 Oreg. 502, 95 Pac. Rep. 722, 728, 729. is See 172, this Supplement, wells as mining claims. Montana. "Cistern": See Neuman v. Grant, 36 Mont. 77, 92 Pac. Rep. 43. See Tunnel, 179, this Supplement, post. 16 California. Tunnel "practically horizontal well": Garvey W. Co. v. Huntington, 154 Cal. 232, 241, 97 Pac. Rep. 428. Montana. Lien for repairing tunnel: Mclntyre-v. Montana G. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. Washington. Compare Price v. Clallam C. Co. (Wash., November 30, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 898. IT California. Definition of "machine": See Korander v. Penn. B. Co. (Cal. App., May 11, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 384; Stearns v. Russell,, 85 Fed. Rep. 225, 29 C. C. A. 121. Gas generators: See Lacy M. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 CaT. App. 37, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. is Kansas. See Hathaway v. Davis, 32 Kan. 693, 5 Pac. Rep. 29. Oklahoma. See Jarrell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167, 169. Washington. Laundry plant: Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727. Sawmill and wood-working plant: Compare Zimmermann- v. Bosse (Wash., November 23, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 796. 19 Colorado. Lien allowed for construction of railroad: Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 57, 573. Federal. See Brooks v. Railroad, 101 U. S. 443, 25 L. ed. 1057. Idaho. See Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, s. c. 95 Pac. Rep. 827. 20 Oregon. See Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 454. 21 Idaho. See Salisbury v. Lane 7 Idaho 370, 63 Pac. Rep. 383. 182-184 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 43. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 44. 23 Additional matter to foot-note 46. 24 Additional matter to foot-note 47. 25 183. Definition of ' ' mine. ' ' Additional matter to foot-note 48. 26 184. Grading and street-work under code provision. Additional matter to foot-note 49. 27 Additional matter to foot-note 52. 28 New Mexico. See Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603. 606. Oregon. Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 454. 22 California. Right of possession of land for mining oils Com- pare Graclosa O. Co. v. Santa Barbara County, 155 Cal. 140, 99 Pac. Rep. 483, 486. Idaho. See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 792, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Oregon. Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 454. 23 Oregon. See Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 454. 24 New Mexico. See Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 606. Oregon. See Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 454. 25 Oregon. See Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co., supra. 26 Montana. Definition of "mine"! Smith v. Sherman M. Co., 12 Mont. 524, 31 Pac. Rep. 72. Oregon. Definition of "mine," "coal mine," "mining claim," and "mining": Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg., January 25, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 454. Utah. See Nephi P. & M. Co. v. Juab County, 33 Utah 114, 93 Pac. Rep. 535. 27 California. Definition of street: See Williams v. San Francisco & N. W. Co., 6 Cal. App. 715, 93 Pac. Rep. 122; Marini v. Graham, 67 Cal. 130, 7 Pac. Rep. 442. Colorado. Board of Public Works v. Hayden, 13 Colo. App. 36, 56 Pac. Rep. 201. Oregon. Heiple v. City of East Portland, 13 Oreg. 97, 8 Pac. Rep. 907. Utah. Davidson v. Utah I. T. Co., 34 Utah 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 124, 125. Washington. "Lot": See City of Seattle v. Seattle E. Co. (Wash.), 94 Pac. Rep. 194. Sidewalk*; rules an to ownership: See Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. 28 Kansas. See Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan., March fl, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 374. 79 ON WHAT LABOR MUST BE DONE. *8 ]'85-189 185. Fixtures. In general. Additional matter to foot-note 54. 29 186. Same. Question of fact. Building. Additional matter to foot-note 55. 30 187. Same. Principles of determination. 31 Additional matter to foot-note 57. 32 Additional matter to foot-note 58. 33 188. Lien primarily on structure. Additional matter to foot-note 61. 34 189. Work upon fixtures, how deemed. Additional matter to foot-note 62. 35 29 Fixtures, generally, see note to Reynolds v. Ashby, 1 Brit. Rul. Cases 1, 11. Electric wiring and fixtures:. See Rowen v. Alladio, 51 Oreg. 121, 93 Pac. Rep. 929. so California. Cells in jail as fixtures: See Sarver v. Los Angeles County, 156 Cal. 187, 103 Pac. Rep. 917. Colorado. Building as fixture: See Hughes v. Kershow, 42 Colo. 210, 93 Pac. Rep. 1116. Oklahoma. Lien does not attacli to an improvement separate and apart from some interest of the owner in the realty whereon it is situated: 'Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214. See 15, 45, 95, this Supplement, ante. Washington. See Welch v. McDonald (Wash., July 11, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 589. si Washington. General principles as to fixtures i American R. Co. v. Pendleton (Wash., February 2, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 1117; Stetson & Post L. Co. v. W. & J. Sloane Co. (Wash., December 12, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 248, 249, 250; Filley v. Christopher, 39 Wash. 22, 80 Pac. Rep. 834, 109 Am. St. Rep. 853; Gasaway v. Thomas, 56 Wash. 77, 105 Pac. Rep. 168, 170. 32 Oregon. Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Oreg., June 28, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 384. Wyoming. Fixtures as between mortgagor and mortgagee: See Anderson v. Englehart (Wyo., June 2, 1910), 108 Pac. Rep. 977. 33 Oregon. Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Oreg., June 28, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 384. 34 Oklahoma. No Hen on fixture as personalty: See Keel v. Inger- soll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214. See 189, this Supplement, post. 35 No Hen on personal property: Kansas. See Hathaway v. Davis, 32 Kan. 693, 5 Pac. Rep. 29. Missouri. Armstrong Cork Co. v. Merchants R. Co. (C. C. A.), 171 Fed. Rep. 778. 190-192 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. QO 190. The severance of buildings from the freehold. Additional matter to foot-note 64. 30 Additional matter to foot-note 65. 37 191. Work on fixtures in mine. 38 Additional matter to foot-note 66. 30 $ 192. Public property. Additional matter to foot-note 68. 40 Additional matter to foot-note 69. 41 Oklahoma. See Jarrell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167, 169; Block v. Pearson, 19 Okl. 422; Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 18, 1910). Ill Pac. Rep. 214. 36 See if 188 and 189, this Supplement, ante. Montana. House as movable fixture: Compare Eisenhauer v. Quinn, 36 Mont. 368. 93 Pac. Rep. 38. Missouri. See Armstrong Cork Co. v. Merchants R. Co. (C. C. A.), 184 Fed. Rep. 199, 207; s. c. (C. C., Mo.), 171 Fed. Rep. 778. \\iiHiiiiiKiim. See Welch v. McDonald (Wash., July 11, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 589. 37 Oklahoma. See Jarrell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167, 169; Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 214. 38 California. Mining: machinery ax fixtures on a mine, as be- tween vendor and vendee: Conde v. Sweeney (Cal. App., August 4, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 973; B. c., 116 Pac. Rep. 319. .'!'. Montana. Machine and tools us fixture* on mlnei See Brlt- tanla M. Co. v. United States F. & Q. Co. (Mont., March 22, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 46. Nevada. Compare Arnold v. Goldfield T. C. M. Co. (Nev., July 1, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 718. Oregon. See Washburn v. Intermountaln M. Co. (Oreg., June 28, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 385. Utah. See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah, June 12, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. 40 See | 564, this Supplement, post. Public property generally: California. Public improvements by day work under Stats. A \nniis. 1001, p. 30i See Perry v. City of Los Angeles (Cal. Sup.), 108 Pac. Rep. 410; Fox v. Hubbard, 108 Pac. Rep. 413. Bond Act of 1897 (Stats. & Amdts. 1897, p. 201): See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 509, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. '21 8. Colorado. Contractor's bond on public work: See State Board of Agriculture V. Dlmick. 46 Colo. 609, 105 Pac. Rep. 1114, 1115. Oregon. Locks of canal as part of public highway. See State v. Portland G. E. Co., 52 Oreg. 502, 95 Pac. Rep. 722, 72*. 729. Washington. Contractor's bond on public work: See Fransioll v. Thompson, 55 Wash. 259, 104 Pac. Rep. 278, 280; Cascade L. Co. v. Aetna I. Co.. 56 Wash. 503, 106 Pac. Rep. 160; Huggins v. Sutherland. 39 Wash. 552, 82 Pac. Rep. 112. 41 California. Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 510, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c.. 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. gl ON WHAT LABOR MUST BE DONE. Additional matter to foot-note 70. 42 Additional matter to foot-note 72. 43 Additional matter to foot-note 73. 44 Additional matter to foot-note 76. 45 42 Idaho. Rathbun v. State, 15 Idaho 273, 97 Pac. Rep. 335, 337. Kansas. See Seitz v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 16 Kan. 133; Hathaway v. Davis, 32 Kan. 693, 5 Pac. Rep. 29; Chicago L. Co. v. Osborn, 40 Kan. 168, 19 Pac. Rep. 656; Mulvane v. Chicago L. Co., 56 Kan. 675, 44 Pac. Rep. 613. Oklahoma. Block v. Pearson, 19 Okl., 422, 91 Pac. Rep. 714. See Jarrell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167, 168. 43 Colorado. No mechanic's lien on public property: State Board of Agriculture v. Dimick, 46 Colo. 609, 105 Pac. Rep. 1114. Idaho. No Hen on state property: Rathbun v. State, 15 Idaho 273, 97 Pac. Rep. 335, 336. See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co. 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 791, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Oregon. As a general rule the property of a quasi-public corpora- tion, affected with a public use and necessary to the performance thereof, is not subject to a mechanic's lien; there is a difference as to what constitutes a quasi-public corporation, and as to when the property of such corporation is affected by a public use: Benbow v. The James Johns (Oreg., May 10, 1910), 108 Pac. Rep. 634, 636 (lien on boat); and see Hill v. La Crosse & M. R. R. Co., 11 Wis. 215; but if the lien has attached to the property before it is acquired by the public the lien remains: Benbow v. The James Johns, supra; and see City of Salem v. Lane & Bodley Co., 90 111. App. 560, affirming 189 111., 594, 60 N. E. Rep. 37, 87 Am. St. Rep. 481. 44 California. Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 510, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. Kansas. But see, contra, Home L. & S. Co. v. School Dist. (Kan., May 6, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 590 (whether lien could be foreclosed upon public property was not discussed in opinion). North Carolina. See Hardware Co. v. Graded School, 150 N. C. 680; s. c., 151 N. C. 507. Oklahoma. Compare McCarthy v. Cain, (Okl., August 23, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 653. 45 Idaho. Compare Rathbun v. State, 15 Idaho 273, 97 Pac. Rep. 335, 337. Bloom's Sup. 6 193-198 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 32 CHAPTER XI. BUILDING CONTRACTS. GENERAL PRINCIPLES. $ 193. General principles applicable. 1 194. Term "original contract" not used in the statute. Additional matter to foot-note 3. 2 195. Essentials of contract. How treated herein. Additional matter to foot-note 7. 3 55196. Definition of "contract." Additional matter to foot-note 9. 4 197. Definition of "building contract." 5 198. Parties to contract. Competency. Additional matter to foot-note II. 6 1 As to public contracts, see Si 201a, 201b and 201c, this Supplement, post. 2 California. The amendment of S 1183, Code Civ. Proc. of May 1, 1911, Stats. & Aimlts. 1911, p. 1313, uses the expression "original con- tract." 3 Oregon. See absence of contractual relation with owner by rea- son of unauthorized contract made by Its architect: Lltherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 100 Pac. Rep. 303. 4 Lawful object i California. Illegal construction of building 1 not rendering lease void: See Wayman Inv. Co. v. Wessinger (Cal. App.), 108 Pac. Rep. 1022. Invalid provision In contract for employment of unnatnrallxed cltl>enat City S. I. Co. v. Kroh, 158 Cal. 308, 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 941. IlleKal public contract*, Mining- competition: California. See City S. I. Co. v. Kroh, supra. Kaunas. National S. Co. v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co., 76 Kan. 914, 92 Pac. Rep. 1111: s. c., sub nom. Atkln v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co. 73 Kan. 768, 84 Pac. Rep. 1040. See 5 201a, Public corporations, this Supplement, post. s See "Nature of Labor," 55130-165, and "Object of Labor," Si 166- 192 this Supplement, ante. e See { 201a this Supplement, post, as to public contracts. g3 BUILDING CONTRACTS. SS 199_2Q1 199. Same. Guardian of minor. Additional matter to foot-note 13. 7 200. Same. Executor. Executors and administrators may make expenditures to preserve the property of the es- tate, 8 as by putting in place the lumber of an uncompleted structure; 9 yet, upon the executor's refusal to do so, the devisee who places the lumber in situ with full knowl- edge of the facts is deemed to have done it voluntarily, and can not recover the amount from the estate. The proper course for the devisee is to apply to the court for an order requiring the executor to make such expenditures as are necessary to preserve the property. Executors have no right to expend funds of the estate in doing new work which the testator himself is not bound to do; as where he was constructing a house by day labor, and there are no uncompleted original contracts, or where the executor erects a new building upon the property of the es- tate. 10 If a lot with a house in course of erection is devised under a will, it is not indicated by that fact alone that the house should be brought to the point of completion by the personal representatives of the deceased. 11 201. Same. Corporations. 12 7 Compare powers of executors and administrators, 200 this Sup- plement, post. California. Los Angeles County v. Winans, 13 Cal. App. 234, 109 Pac. Rep. 640, 649; s. c., 109 Pac. Rep. 650. 8 In re Hincheon's Estate (Cal. Sup., May 16, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 47, 50; In re Close, 110 Cal. 494, 42 Pac. Rep. 971; Byrd v. Governor, 2 Mo. 102. See Gray v. Hawkins, 8 Ohio St. 449, 77 Am. Dec. 600. 9 California. In re Hincheon's Estate (Cal. Sup., May 16, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 47, 50. 10 California. In re Hincheon's Estate, supra. See In re Moore, 72 Cal. 335, 13 Pac. Rep. 880. 11 California. In re Hincheon's Estate, supra. 12 Foreign corporations; compliance with state laws; see various lin.es of authorities: Idaho. Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 770; Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 25. See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 800; s. c., 92 Pac. Rep. 980. New Mexico. Foreign corporation as claimant: See Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706. 201, 201a MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. g^ Additional matter to foot-note 17. 13 201a. Same. Public corporations. 14 It is a general principle of law applying to the letting of contracts for pub- Apparent authority of officer* California. See Eells v. Gray Bros. C. R. Co., 13 Cal. App. 33, 108 Pac. Rep. 735 (secretary; estoppel of corporation). Idaho. See Valley L. Co. v. McGllvery, 16 Idaho 338, 101 Pac. Rep. 94. Kantian. Officer's acts prohibited by by-laws can not be ratified i Hoffman v. Farmers' Co-op. S. Assoc., 78 Kan. 561, 97 Pac. Rep. 440, 443. Authority of president of corporation: Harding v. Oregon-Idaho Co. (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 412, 415. See Wait v. Nashua A. Assoc., 66 N. H. 581, 23 Atl. Rep. 77, 14 L. R. A. 356, 4 Am. St. Rep. 630; Lundon M. Co. v. Lyndon L. I., 63 Vt. 581, 22 Atl. Rep. 575, 25 Am. St. Rep. 783; Derr v. Fisher, 22 Okl. 126, 98 Pac. Rep. 978. 13 See | 446, this Supplement, post. Oregon. Director of corporation as claimant; knowledge of presi- dent and secretary, not imputable to him: Compare Washburn v. Inter-Mountain M. Co. (Oreg., June 28, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 385. Washington. Corporation an claimant: See Pacific I. & S. Works v. Goerig, 55 Wash. 149, 104 Pac. Rep. 151. 14 Signing of contract by proper officer: Idaho. Signing of contract of municipality by mayor of a city, held insufficient without authorization or ratification: Woodward v. City of Grangerville, 13 Idaho 652, 92 Pac. Rep. 840. Washington. See Griffin v. City of Tacoma, 49 Wash. 524, 95 Pac. Rep. 1107. California. Contracts for furnishings: See Sarver v. Los Angeles County, 156 Cal. 187, 103 Pac. Rep. 917, distinguishing Erble v. Leary, 114 Cal. 238, 46 Pac. Rep. 1. Washington. Recovery of contractor on contract violating statute: Green v. Okanogan County (Wash., October 12, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 226. Powers of public corporations: California. Passage of resolution and posting notice inviting bids, preliminary to public contract: See Gay v. Engebretson, 158 Cal. 21, 109 Pac. Rep. 877; s. c., sub nom. Engebretson v. Gay, 158 Cal. 27, 30, 109 Pac. Rep. 879, 880. Idaho. Powers of Boise City as to construction of sewers under charter, Laws 1907, p. 57: Boise City N. B. v. Boise City, 15 Idaho 792, 100 Pac. Rep. 93. Kansas. Power of municipality to do street work: See Barnes v. City of Parsons, 77 Kan. 311, 94 Pac. Rep. 151. Power of township to construct bridges: See Rossville Tp., Shaw- nee County v. Alma N. Bank, 78 Kan. 773, 98 Pac. Rep. 234. Oklahoma: Contract for filtration plant exceeding estimates of cost of engineer, void, under statute: Bowles v. Neely (April 14, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 345. Oregon. Power to provide water system, not legislative but pro- prietary: Tone v. Tillamook City (Oreg., April 11, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 838, 840. See Esberg C. Co. v. Portland, 34 Oreg. 282, 55 Pac. Rep. 961, 43 L. R. A. 435, 75 Am. St. Rep. 651. 85 BUILDING CONTRACTS. 201a, 201b lie work to the lowest bidder, upon plans and specifications previously adopted, that they must be sufficiently certain and definite, upon all the details of the work which materially affect its cost, to apprise bidders of all the essential and sub- stantial parts of the work and enable them to know with reasonable accuracy the outlay they will have to make in performing the work to be contracted for. This is thor- oughly established in the case of public improvements of streets, where the cost is raised by assessment upon the property owners within the district specially benefited there- by. 15 201b. Same. The reason for the rule, as applied to such work, is in part because such uncertainty deprives the property owners of the knowledge necessary to enable them to undertake the work themselves, as the statute provides they may, and in part because it deprives bidders of like knowledge, and thereby tends to prevent the fair competi- tion and resulting low cost of the work, which is the prin- cipal object of the provision. The latter reason is as per- suasive as the first, it is sufficient to support the rule, and it applies as well where the cost is to be paid with money already raised by taxation or by the sale of bonds, as where it is to be raised after the work is done by assessment upon the benefitted property. 16 Washington. Delegation of power of town council to committee: See Woldenberg v. Sampson, 55 Wash. 152, 104 Pac. Rep. 184. is City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Cal., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 937, citing the following cases: Piedmont P. Co. v. Allman, 136 Cal. 89, 68 Pac. Rep. 493; California I. Co. v. Reynolds, 123 Cal. 92, 55 Pac. Rep. 802; Grant v. Barber, 135 Cal. 191, 67 Pac. Rep. 127; Stans- bury v. White, 121 Cal. 437, 53 Pac. Rep. 940; Chase v. Scheerer, 136 Cal. 251, 66 Pac. Rep. 768; Ferine v. Pasadena, 116 Cal. 9, 47 Pac. Rep. 777; Warren v. Chandos, 115 Cal. 385, 47 Pac. Rep. 132. 16 City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Cal., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 937 See Santa Cruz etc. Co. v. Broderick, 113 Cal. 631, 45 Pac. Rep. 863; Ertie v. Leary, 114 Cal. 241, 46 Pac. Rep. 1; American C. Co. v. Lick- ing Co., 31 Ohio St. 415; Detroit v. Hosmer, 79 Mich., 388, 44 N. W. Rep. 622; Fones Bros. Co. v. Erb, 54 Ark. 645, 17 S. W. Rep. 7, 13 L. R. A. 353; Andrews v. Board, 7 Idaho 457, 63 Pac. Rep. 592; Gage v. New York, 110 App. Div. 403, 97 N. Y. Supp. 157; McBrian v. Grand Rapids, 56 Mich. 99, 22 N. W. Rep. 206. Of the provisions objected to in the case first cited, "the following come within this class and do not invalidate the contract: The con- 201b MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. gg Where the property owners consent to an improvement and the issuance of bonds therefor, the proceeding is not strictly in invitum, and the Bxtreme strictness of construction against the validity of contracts made under such circumstances is not required. 17 If a taxpayer endeavors to enjoin the letting of the con- tract, on the ground that a limitation of the specifications is void and that it tends to discourage bidders and make the work more expensive, possibly the suit may be maintained, tractor must grade the connections with intersecting roads to the satisfaction of the engineer employed by the commission. He was allowed to take water from the county wells and tanks along the road, but, if that was insufficient, he was required to obtain the necessary quantity from other sources at his own expense. A method of mixing the asphaltic cement was recommended, but any other method was permitted, provided it would result in coating every particle of the stone, sand and dust with the asphaltic cement. If compelled to cease work temporarily, the contractor was required to leave in a passable condition during the winter the part of the road upon which he had worked. The statute limits the width of the roadway made with these funds to 16 feet. Public roads must be at least 40 feet wide. The sole purpose of this clause is to secure a way for public travel, and it would be substantially complied with if the portion of the public road not occupied by the pavement was made fit for that purpose. During the progress of the work he must maintain a roadway for traffic, either alongside the pavement on the highway, or on private land adjoining, 'unless in the judgment of the engineer it is a physical impossibility to do so.' Soft material encountered was to be removed as directed by the engineer. The earth for the embankments and shoulders was to be of a quality satisfactory to the engineer. All of these provisions come within the exception above stated. They do not make the contract void. * * * If soft spots developed under rolling they were to be ex- cavated to a depth of two feet, and then filled with clean dry earth or gravel. The foundation was to be of gravel wherever directed by the engineer, and was to be not less than three inches thick after compacting, or thicker, -if so directed by the engineer. The pro- visions for extra work in excavating the soft spots which might be developed when the heavy roller was applied come within the rule regarding unforeseen contingencies, declared in Haughawout v. Hub- bard and other similar cases above cited. The specification that the engineer should decide where the gravel foundation should be laid and its thickness is not objectionable, since by the contract the con- tractor is to be paid for laying such foundation at a fixed price per ton for the amount of gravel used therein. The decision of the engineer could not injuriously affect him." City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Cal., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 937, 938 (other similar points considered). IT City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Cal. Sup., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 938. See this case for a number of other points decided relative to the law of public contracts for highway, and issuance of bonds therefor. g7 BUILDING CONTRACTS. 8 201b or it may be that in a proceeding in invitum, when a stricter rule prevails, where the consent of the taxpayer has not been previously obtained and the money is yet to be raised from them by assessment, such a clause in the specifications will be fatal to the validity of the contract; but where the contract has been let, the work involved in the demand has been performed under it in good faith, and the people have voted the bonds and the money has been realized therefrom, and no facts are shown to indicate that this clause had any effect whatever upon the bids, or concern the character of the improvement to be made, but was collateral thereto, the rule is otherwise. 18 18 In People v. Featherstonhaugh, 172 N. Y. 112, 64 N. E. Rep. 802, 60 L. R. A. 768, where a similar case was presented, the court held that the contractor must be presumed to have known that the clause in the specifications was void, and to have made his bid with that understanding, and that he was entitled to payment under the con- tract, notwithstanding such invalid clause in the specifications and contract. It appeared in that case that the courts had previously decided that the provision was void and that this was actually known to the successful bidder. But the court distinctly declares that the rule would be the same in the absence of such decision. In People v. Coler, 166 N. Y. 1, 59 N. E. Rep. 716, 52 L. R. A. 814, 82 Am. St. Rep. 605, a similar clause in the contract was held to be invalid. But it was further held that the contract was not void, and that, when such a contract has been made and has been performed by the contractor, the fact that he has violated the invalid provision is no defense to an action, by him to enforce payment of the contract price. The same conclusion was declared in Chicago v. Hulbert, 205 111. 363, 68 N. E. Rep. 786; Marshall v. Nashville, 109 Tenn. 513, 71 S. W. Rep. 815; Cleveland v. Clements, 67 Ohio St. 197, 65 N. E. Rep. 885, 59 L. R. A. 775, 93 Am. St. Rep. 670. "In Inge v. Board, 135 Ala. 202, 33 South. Rep. 678, 93 Am. St. Rep. 20, the work had not been performed, and the suit was instituted by taxpayers to restrain its performance. It was an ordinary street improvement proceeding. There was a similar clause in the specifi- cations, and it was held that this prevented fair bidding and made the contract void. The point that it should be presumed to have been disregarded was not raised or considered. We think that the cases first cited above apply the better rule to be followed here. The void provision did not in any respect concern or affect the char- acter of the improvement to be made, but was wholly collateral thereto. The case does not come within the scope of the rule that public corporations are not estopped by benefits received from the actual performance of an ultra vires contract, as in Zottman v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 96, 81 Am. Dec. 96, and the numerous cases follow- ing the rule there stated. The presumption being that the parties all disregarded the collateral and invalid specification and there being nothing tending to prove or to indicate the contrary, the con- clusion logically follows that, so far as this point is concerned, the 201C 202 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. gg 201c. Same. Exception. There is a well-recognized exception to the rule first stated, in the case of details of construction which do not appear and can not with reason- able diligence and' cost be ascertained in advance, or which will be disclosed only by the doing of the work, or any con- tingency which reasonable care and consideration would not foresee. Such things may occur in every work of any con- siderable magnitude, and they must be left to be adjusted in accordance with general provisions of the contract, or by the discretion of the person or board supervising its per- formance. Examples of such details, and of lawful provi- sions for their determination, were considered in the cases hereafter cited. 19 202. Same. Owner. Contract not binding, contractor's lien fails. Implied contract. Additional matter to foot-note 18. 20 Additional matter to foot-note 19. 21 contract was properly awarded and lawfully made": City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Cal., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 941, 942. California. Specifications as to public safeguards, In street Im- provement contract, not increasing obligation of contractor: See Schindler v. Young (Cal. App.), 108 Pac. Rep. 733. Examples of matters restricting competitive bidding and avoiding contract t California. Stansbury v. Poindexter, 154 Cal. 709, 99 Pac. Rep. 182; Blochman v. Spreckles, 135 Cal. 664, 67 Pac. Rep. 1061, 57 L. R. A. 213; Clouse v. City of San Diego (Cal. Sup., March 8, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 573, 575. Kansas. National S. Co. v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co., 76 'Kan. 914, 92 Pac. Rep. 1111; s. c., sub. nom. Atkin v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co., 73 Kan. 768, 84 Pac. Rep. 1040. Oklahoma. Citizens N. Bank v. Mitchell (Okl., July 13, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 720. See McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U. S. 644, 670, 19 Sup. Ct. 841, 83 L. ed. 1117. 10 City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Cal., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933. 937, citing: Haughawout v. Hubbard, 131 Cal. 679, 63 Pac. Rep. 1078; Belser v. Allan, 134 Cal. 400, 66 Pac. Rep. 492; Banaz v. Smith, 133 Cal. 106, 65 Pac. Rep. 309; Haughawout v. Raymond, 148 Cal. 311, 83 Pac. Rep. 53; Chase v. Scheerer, 136 Cal. 251, 66 Pac. Rep. 768; McCaleb v. Dreyfus, 156 Cal. 204, 103 Pac. Rep. 924. 20 Oregon. Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. 21 Oregon. See Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., supra. gg BUILDING CONTRACTS. 203-207 . 203. Same. Owner. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 22 204. Same. Owner. Street-work. Additional matter to foot-note 25. 23 205. Contract made with reference to statute. Additional matter to foot-note 27. 24 206. Consent. Additional matter to foot-note 28. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 33. 26 207. Same. Fraud. Mistake. Additional matter to foot-note 31. 27 22 Oregon. See law of privity: Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. B. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. See Crane Co. v. Erie H. Co. (Oreg., December 20, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 340 for full statement and authorities as to the necessity of authority from the owner, expressly, impliedly or by way of estoppel, for the construction of the improvement; "all authority to bind the owner * * * must emanate from the original contract, which becomes the foundation law for the government of all sub-contracts, as they must be created undey it and by virtue of the contractor's authority obtained through it. 23 California. 1191 Code Civ. Proc. was not amended by Stats. & Amdts. 1911, p. 1313. 24 Washington. Compare Leidendecker v. Aetna I. Co., 52 Wash. 609, 101 Pac. Rep. 219. 25 California. As to meeting; of minds regarding extras: See City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Cal. Sup., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 940, 941. Idaho. See Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 83. 26 Idaho. See Nave v. McGrane (Idaho, December 20, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 82, 83. 27 Unilateral mistake: Idaho. See Tatum v. Coast L. Co., 16 Idaho 471, 101 Pac. Rep. 957. Illinois. See Sternmeyer v. Schroeppel, 226 111. 9, 80 N. E. Rep. 564, 117 Am. St. Rep. 224, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.), 114. As to exclusion of certain material to be furnished by contractor: Oregon. See Mclnnis v. Buchanon, 53 Oreg. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 929, 931. Fraud; statute providing no school district trustee should be inter- ested in contract; contract void: Independence School Dist. v. Collins (Idaho, December 8, 1908), 98 Pac. Rep. 857. 28 208-215 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. g0 208. Same. Indefiniteness of contract. False reference to plans and specifications. Additional matter to foot-note 34. 28 209. Consideration. Additional matter to foot-note 38. 29 210. Ratification. Additional matter to foot-note 42. 3(> 211. Definition of ' ' original contract. ' ' Additional matter to foot-note 46. 31 212. Same. Owner, laborer and material-man. Additional matter to foot-note 47. 32 213. Same. Subcontractor's contract. Add to end of paragraph "where the statute requires such record." Additional matter to foot-note 48. 33 214. Same. Definition of "statutory original contracts" and "non-statutory original contracts." Additional matter to foot-note 50. 34 215. Same. Contract for street-work. Additional matter to foot-note 51. 35 28 See 119 et seq., Architect, this Supplement, ante. 29 Kansas. See Pittsburgh V. P. & B. B. Co. v. Cerebus O. Co., .79 Kan. 603, 100 Pac. Rep. 631. \ViiMliliiKt<>n. See Evans v. Oregon & W. R. Co., 58 Wash., 429, 108 Pac. Rep. 5, 7. so See 26, this Supplement, ante. si California. See 1183 Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, p. 1313. 32 See "Owner," generally, 508 et seq., this Supplement, post. 33 See 66-76, this Supplement, ante. 34 California. The amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183 Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, p. 1313, abolishes the statutory original contract. 35 California. 1191 Code Civ. Proc. was not changed by the amend- ments of May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. CONTRACTS CONSTRUCTION. SS 216-219 CHAPTER XII. BUILDING CONTRACTS (CONTINUED). CONSTRUCTION OF SAME. IN GENERAL. 216. Construction of building contracts. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 216a. Contract as personal obligation of contractor. The contractor's obligation to construct by entering into a building contract is not personal unless the contrary inten- tion appears; and ordinarily a construction contract is bind- ing upon his personal representatives. 2 217. Several contracts relating to same matters. Additional matter to foot-note 3. 3 218. Ambiguity or uncertainty in contract. Additional matter to foot-note 4. 4 219. Particular clauses. General intent. Additional matter to foot-note 8. 5 1 California. Construction of contract as to powers of engineer, so as to make contract lawful: See City S. I. Co. v. Kroh, 158 Cal. 308, 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 938. New Mexico. "Modern $30,000 theatre building" in contract, con- strued: Neher v. Viviani (N. M., August 10, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 697. 2 MacDonald v. O'Shea, 58 Wash. 169, 108 Pac. Rep. 436. See Bil- ling's Appeal, 106 Pa. 558, 560; Dickenson v. Calahan's Admr., 19 Pa. 227. And see exhaustive notes in 21 L. R. A. (N. S.), 915 and 68 Am. Dec. 760. See, also 200 this Supplement, ante. 3 Utah. Compare Ryan v. Curlew I. & R. Co. (Utah, September 16, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 218, 220. * Idaho. Contract silent as to amount of excavation; yardage: See Whiteway v. State (Idaho, February 13, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 98, 101. As to character of construction, etc.: See Sanders v. 'Keller (Idaho, October 4, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 350. 5 Colorado. Contract considered as a whole: Town of Sterling v. Kurd, 44 Colo. 436, 98 Pac. Rep. 174, 176. 220-224 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Q2 220. Entire and severable contracts. Additional matter to foot-note 10. Additional matter to foot-note 11. T 221. Dependent and independent promises. 8 222. Joint and several contracts. Additional matter to foot-note 17. 9 223. Contract explained by circumstances. 10 224. Reasonable stipulations, when implied. Additional matter to foot-note 21. ll 6 Apportionment of price to each Item: California. Rockwell v. Light, 6 Cal. App. 563, 565, 92 Pac. Rep. 649. See Generally Los Angeles G. & E. Co. v. Amalgamated O. Co., 156. Cal. 776, 106 Pac. Rep. 55. Kansas. See Bailey v. Fredonia G. Co., 82 Kan. 746, 109 Pac. Rep. 411. General rule as to single contract : See Tonopah L. Co. v. Nevada A. Co., 30 Nev. 445, 97 Pac. Rep. 636, 638. See Miller v. Batchelder, 117 Mass. 179; Union Trust Co. v. Casserly, 127 Mich. 183, 86 N. W. Rep. 545. 7 Kansas. Contract to drill five wells, held to be severable: Bailey v. Fredonia G. Co., 82 Kan. 746, 109 Pac. Rep. 411. See 59 Am. St. Rep. 279, note; and 20 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1069, note. 8 See 220 and 222 Treatise and Supplement. o Washington. See Bailey M. Works v. Miller (Wash., August 8, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 422, 423. 10 As to liability of owner for delay by act of otber original con- tractors See Goss v. Northern Pacific H. Assoc., 50 Wash. 236, 96 Pac. Rep. 1078. By conduct of parties] See City S. I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419, 101 Pac. Rep. 308. As to term "primings": Rockwell v. Light, 6 Cal. App. 563, 92 Pac. Rep. 649. Uncertainty as to character of construction: Sanders v. Keller (Idaho, October 4, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 350. Time of essence of contract: See Standard L. Co. v. Miller & Vidor L. Co., 21 Okl. 617, 96 Pac. Rep. 761, 765. As to estoppel: Minnetonka O. Co. v. Cleveland V. B. Co. (Okl., September 13, 1910), 111 Pac. Rep. 326. Presenting bill: See James v. Beebe (Wash., July 18, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1032, 1033. 11 An to Implied agreement of contractor and owner to remove earth falling on property: See Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 697, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. Usage: See Puritos L. Co. v. Green (Cal. App., March 21, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 660. CONTRACTS CONSTRUCTION. 22 224-227 Additional matter to foot-note 22. 12 225. Same. Time of performance unspecified. Additional matter to foot-note 25. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 27. 14 226. Warranty. Additional matter to foot-note 29. 15 227. Construction of statutory original contracts. Additional matter to foot-note 30. 16 No implied covenant that building is to continue in existence: Wat- son v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 560, 565, 108 Pac. Rep. 48; s. c., 12 Cal. App. 566, 108 Pac. Rep. 50. Implied agreement of contractor to pay bills under agreement to furnish materials and labor: Covey v. Schiesswohl (Colo., March 6, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 292. Measurement of material before being placed in situ: McKivor v. Savage (Wash., September 19, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 811, 813. Reasonable value of work: Holm v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash., July 7, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 799, 800. As to contracts where promisee is to be "satisfied": See Midgley v. Campbell B. Co. (Utah, January 4, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 820, 824, 825. 12 "Good and workmanlike manner" construed: See Holland v. Rhoades (Oreg., February 8, 1910), 106 Pac. Rep. 779. is New Mexico. Cowles v. Hagerman (N. M., August 29, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 843; s. c., 14 N. M. 422, 94 Pac. Rep. 946. See Neher v. Viviani (N. M., August 14, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 695. Washington. Berlin M. Works v. Miller (Wash., August 8, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 422, 424. 14 New Mexico. Neher v. Viviani (N. M., August 10, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 697; Hagerman v. Cowles, 14 N. M. 422, 94 Pac. Rep. 946; s. c., 110 Pac. Rep. 843. is Warranty as to machine: See International P. Co. v. Caney I. & C. S. Co. ('Kan., May 6, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 635; Berlin M. Works v. Miller (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 422, 424. Warranty as to efficiency of heating plant: See Yundt v. Schlutz- Degginger Co. (Wash., March 3, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 760. Warranty as to railroad crossing: See demons v. Gray's Harbor & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash., April 7, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 865. Warranty, generally: See Hale v. Van Buren & M. Co. (Okl.), 103 Pac. Rep. 1026. 16 California. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by Amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. 228 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 94 228. Instances of construction of contracts. Additional matter to foot-note 33. 17 IT Construction of contract for development of water: See Garvey W. Co. v. Huntingdon L. & I. Co., 164 Cal. 232, 97 Pac. Rep. 428. Con- struction of contract as to grading: See Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 612, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. ConBtructlon of contract for erection of theatre building: See Neher v. Vivian! (N. M., August 10, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 698. 95 CONTRACTS COMMON CLAUSES. SR 229-232 CHAPTER XIII. BUILDING CONTRACTS (CONTINUED). COMMON CLAUSES PECULIAR TO BUILDING CONTRACTS. IN GENERAL. 229. Scope of chapter. 1 230. Arbitration clause. California. Additional matter to foot-note 2. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 3. 3 231. Same. Agreement to arbitrate not final. The object of arbitration is to put an end to litigation, and it is essential to the validity of the award that it should be final and conclusively determine the matters submitted to the arbitrators, thus leaving nothing to be done but to execute and carry out the terms of the award. This is true both at the common law and under the code. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 5. 5 232. Same. When procuring award condition precedent. Additional matter to foot-note 6. 6 Additional matter to foot-note 7. 7 1 See also following chapters, 258 to 314 this Supplement, post. 2 Washington. Owen v. Casey, 48 Wash. 673, 94 Pac. Rep. 463. 3 Arbitration clause: California. See Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 230, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. Compare Dahlberg v. Girsch (Cal.), 107 Pac. Rep. 616. Colorado. Compare, generally, Empson P. Co. v. Clawson, 43 Colo. 188, 95 Pac. Rep. 546. Washington. See Owens v. Casey, 48 Wash. 673, 94 Pac. Rep. 473. 4 California. Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 238, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. 5 Idaho. See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., on rehearing, 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 801; s. c., 92 Pac. Rep. 780 (where submission to arbitration is not binding upon both parties, it will not be enforced by the courts). 6 California. See Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 238. Idaho. Compare Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 795, 796, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. 7 California. See Burke v. Dittus, 8 Cal. App. 175, 178, 96 Pac. Rep. 330; Coplew v. Durand, 153 Cal. 278, 279, 95 Pac. Rep. 38. cc 232-236 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. QQ Additional matter to foot-note 8. 8 S 233. Same. Distinction between two classes of cases. Additional matter to foot-note 9. 9 234. Same. Submission to arbitration revocable. Additional matter to foot-note 10. 10 235. Same. Good faith and open dealings of arbitrators. Additional matter to foot-note II. 11 236. Estimates. Stipulations in construction contracts that engineers' estimates should be followed have been gen- erally held valid and more binding than the ordinary sub- mission to arbitration, for the reason that such stipulations enter into and become a part of the consideration of the con- tract, without which it would not in all probability have been made. They are intended to avoid harrassing litigation over questions that can only be determined intelligently by those possessing scientific knowledge. 12 Washington. Dickerman v. Reeder (Wash., July 23, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. s Washington. See Dickerman v. Reeder (Wash., July 23, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. 9 Colorado. See Town of Sterling v. Hurd, 44 Colo. 436, 98 Pac. Rep. 174, 176. Waahington. See Use v. Aetna I. Co., 55 Wash. 487, 104 Pac. Rep. 787, 789. 10 See | 231 this Supplement, ante. 11 Colorado. See Town of Sterling v. Hurd, 44 Colo. 436, 98 Pac. Rep. 174, 176; Empson P. Co. v. Clawson, 95 Pac. Rep. 546. See, also, Lamson v. City of Marshall, 133 Mich. 250, 95 N. W. Rep. 78. Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Utah. See Midgley v. Campbell B. Co. (Idaho, January 4, 1911), 112 Pac. Rep. 820. , Waxhlngton. Camp v. Neufelder, 49 Wash. 426, 95 Pac. Rep. 640; McKivor v. Savage (Wash., September 19, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 811, 812; Sweatt v. Bonne (Wash., September 3, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 617; Plnickneff v. Johnson, 54 Wash. 156, 102 Pac. Rep. 1047, 1048. See, generally, chapter on Architect, 119 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 12 California. City S. I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419, 427, 101 Pac. Rep. 308; Williams v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 487, 20 S. W. Rep. 631, 34 Am. St. Rep. 403. But the -i iiml:ii ii.n intiat be expressed In clear language: 97 CONTRACTS COMMON CLAUSES. 236 237 Additional matter to foot-note 14. 13 237. Liquidated damages. Additional matter to foot-note 16. 14 Additional matter to foot-note 18. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 19. 16 Oregon. Williams v. Mount Hood Ry. & P. Co. (Oreg., August 3, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 490, 492; s. c., Ill Pac. Rep. 17. is Idaho. See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 797, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Oregon. See Williams v. Mount Hood Ry. & P. Co. (Oreg., August 3, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 490, 492; s. c., Ill Pac. Rep. 17. Washington. Estimates not overthrown, except upon evidence of fraud: McKivor v. Savage (Wash., December 19, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 811, 812; Pinickneff v. Johnson, 54 Wash. 156, 102 Pac. Rep. 1047. But see Young Men's Christian Assoc. v. Gibson, 58 Wash. 307, 108 Pac. Rep. 766, 769; Use v. Aetna I. Co., 55 Wash. 487, 104 Pac. Rep. 787. 11 Liquidated damages: See 810 Treatise. California. See Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 238, 107 Pac. Rep. 150; Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 612, 95 Pac. Rep. 382; Sherman v. Gray, 11 Cal. App. 348, 104 Pac. Rep. 1004. Colorado. See Gillett v. Young, 45 Colo. 562, 101 Pac. Rep. 766. Kansas. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gaba, 78 Kan. 432, 97 Pac. Rep. 435. Xew Mexico. See Thomas v. Gavin (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 841. Washington. Waiver. See Erickson v. Green, 47 Wash. 613, 92 Pac. Rep. 449. Damages for delay: California. See Bacigalupi v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App., No- vember 23, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 892, 894; Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 42, 106 Pac. Rep. 413; Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 490, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. Colorado. Gillett v. Young, 45 Colo. 562, 101 Pac. Rep. 766. Washington. See Keenan v. Empire State S. Co. (Wash., February 20, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 636, 638; Goss v. Northern Pac. H. Assoc., 50 Wash. 236, 96 Pac. Rep. 1078. Damages, generally: California. See Gay v. Engrebretson, 158 Cal. 21, 109 Pac. Rep. 877; s. c., sub. nom., Engrebretson v. Gay, 158 Cal. 27, 30, 109 Pac. Rep. 879. Kansas. See Fossett v. Rock-Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 838, 839. Washington. Dickerman v. Reeder (Wash., July 23, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. is Kansas. Illinois T. & S. B. v. City of Burlington, 79 Kan. 797, 101 Pac. Rep. 649. Washington. Dickerman v. Reeder (Wash., July 23, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. 16 Washington. Williams v. Lewis N. Rosenbaum Co., 57 Wash. 94, 106 Pac. Rep. 493; Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co.,>58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024, 1027; demons v. Grays Harbor & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash., April 7, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 865; Bell v. Scranton C. M. Co. Bloom's Sup. 7 238-241 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 93 238. Certificates. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 17 Additional matter to foot-note 22. 18 Additional matter to foot-note 23. 19 239. Certificate, when excused. Additional matter to foot-note 25. 20 Additional matter to foot-note 26. 21 240. Waiver of certificate. Additional matter to foot-note 27. 22 241. Same. Dismissal of architect. Additional matter to foot-note 30. 23 (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 628. See Erickson v. Green. 47 Wash. 613, 92 Pac. Rep. 449, 450; Madler v. Silverstone, 65 Wash. 159, 104 Pac. Rep. 165. IT California. See City S. I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419, 432, 101 Pac. Rep. 308. Compare Watson v. Alta L Co., 12 Cal. App. 560, 108 Pac. Rep. 48. Certificate of professional architect not required! Bacigalupi v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App., November 23, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 892, 895. \\ nxliliiKton. See Young: Men's Christian Assoc. v. Gibson, 58 Wash. 307, 108 Pac. Rep. 766, 767. is Oregon. See Mclnnis v. Buchanon, 53 Ore?. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 929, 930. \\iiMiiiiiKton. Sweatt v. Bonne (Wash., September 3, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 617. IB Washington. Dickerman v. Reeder (Wash., July 23, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. 20 Montana. Piper v. Murray (Mont., April 22, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 671. 21 See Architect. 129a et seq., this Supplement, ante. California. Coplew v. Durand, 153 Cal. 278, 281, 95 Pac. Rep. 38. See City S. I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419, 432. 101 Pac. Rep. 308; Hetting-er v. Thiele (Cal. App., December 13, 1910), 113 Pac. Rep. 121, 123. Illinois. See Mantonya v. Reilly, 83 111. App. 275, affirming 84 111. 183. Utah. Piper v. Murray (Mont., April 22, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 671. Washington. See Use v. Aetna I. Co., 55 Wash. 487, 104 Pac. Rep. 787; Dickerman v. Reeder (Wash., July 23. 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. 22 Montana. Piper v. Murray (Mont., April 22, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 669, 673. Oregon. Mclnnis v. Buchanon, 53 Oreg. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 929, 930. 23 Montana. See Piper v. Murray (Mont., April 22, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 673. 99 CONTRACTS COMMON CLAUSES. SR 242-245 242. Conclusiveness of certificate. AdditionaL matter to foot-note 31. 24 Additional matter to foot-note 32. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 33. 26 243. Extra work. Generally. The contractor can not abandon the work because the owner will not agree to pay him for extra work, which the contractor is bound to do, under the contract. 27 Additional matter to foot-note 35. 28 244. Same. Definition. Additional matter to foot-note 36. 29 245. Same. Extra work provided for in contract. Where the consent of the parties to an alteration is secured 24 Washington. As against the sureties of contractor: See La- zelle v. Empire State S. Co., 58 Wash. 589, 109 Pac. Rep. 195, 197. 25 Washington. See Use v. Aetna I. Co., 55 Wash. 487, 104 Pac. Rep. 787. 26 Progress certificates of the architect are not conclusive, when they are issued with the reservation that the final certificate is to adjust the rights of the parties: California. Coplew v. Durand, 153 Cal. 278, 281, 95 Pac. Rep. 38. 27 California. Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 698, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. 28 California. Extra work under public contract: See City S. I. Co. v. Kroh, 158 Cal. 308, 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 939. Colorado. Extra work ordered by architect: See Hottel v. Poudre Valley R. Co., 41 Colo. 370, 92 Pac. Rep. 918, 919. Federal. Fuller & Co. v. Young & Co., 126 Fed. Rep. 343, 61 C. C. A. 245. Idaho. See Whitney v. State (Idaho, February 13, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 98; Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 803, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Kansas. See City of Hutchinson v. White, 80 Kan. 37, 101 Pac. Rep. 458, 460; Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan., March 11, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 374. Washington. See Camp v. Neufelder, 49 Wash. 426, 95 Pac. Rep. 640; James v. Beebe (Wash., July 18, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1032; Yundt v. Schultz-Degginger Co. (Wash., March 3, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 760; Keenan v. Empire State S. Co. (Wash., February 20, 1911), 113 Pac. Rep. 636, 638. 29 California. See City S. I. Co. v. Kroh, 158 Cal. 308, 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 939, 940. Utah. Ryan v. Curlew I. & R. Co. (Utah, September 16, 1909), 104 Pac. Rep. 218, 219. Washington. See James v. Beebe (Wash., July 18, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 1032, 1033. 245 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. by a reservation of power in the employer to make such changes inserted in the original contract, the rule must nec- cessarily be the Same with respect to the right to compensa- tion for extra work caused thereby, or to a deduction thereby, as when the alteration is made by consent after the work is begun. It is established that in such cases the contractor is entitled to charge and receive the reasonable value or cost of the extra work caused by the alteration. Upon the same principles, it must also be held that the employer or owner. is entitled to a reasonable reduction from the contract price, if the changes thus made by authority or consent have mate- rially lessened the amount and cost of the work required by the original contract, and that such deduction should be made at the contract rate for the work omitted, as far as practi- cable. The rule is thus stated in 3 Southerland on Damages, 709: "It often occurs that a partial rescission results from deviations from the original plan and contract made by deliberate and explicit direction of the employer, or with his consent and acquiesence, and -by such departure other work is substituted with other prices agreed to, or implied. In such cases the omission of the particular work excluded by the substitution is not a violation of, but is dispensed with by modifying, the contract. * * * The contractor may then be entitled to recover the contract price with in- crease or subject to such diminution as is produced by the change of plan, on a quantum meruit. " 30 The reason of this rule is practically the same as in the numerous cases holding that a slight failure of the con- tractor to make complete performance is not sufficient to defeat his right to recover the contract price, less a reason- able deduction for the imperfections. This is the rule where imperfections are not fraudulent, but are made by accident so California. City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Cal., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 940, 941. The following cases hold that In case the work is materially dimin- ished by such alteration the employer is entitled to have the con- tract price proportionately reduced: Holmes v. Stummel, 17 111. 455; Goldsmith v. Hand, 26 Ohio St. 107; Jewett v. Weston, 11 Me. 349; White v. Oliver, 36 Me. 92; Wright v. Wright, 11 Ky. 180. CONTRACTS COMMON CLAUSES. 245-247 or inadvertence, and are not of sufficient extent to consti- tute a substantial departure from the original plan. The employer is presumed to agree to take the completed struc- ture as it is, with the implied agreement by the contractor to make the proper deduction from the price, and the recovery is upon the contract, and not upon the quantum meruit. 31 Additional matter to foot-note 40. 32 246. Same. Contract in writing. Additional matter to foot-note 42. 33 Additional matter to foot-note 43. 34 247. Same. Verbal alteration of written contract. Additional matter to foot-note 44. 35 31 California. City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Gal., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 940. See Perry v. Quackenbush, 105 Cal. 308, 38 Pac. Rep. 740; Marchant v. Hayes, 117 Cal. 672, 49 Pac. Rep. 840; Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 361, 45 N. W. Rep. 845, 9 L. R. A. 52; Crouch v. Gutmann, 134 N. Y. 45, 31 N. E. Rep. 271, 30 Am. St. Rep. 608. "An alteration from the original plan, decreasing the grading under the contract in the case at bar, could not be said to be a breach of the contract, since the contract authorizes it. But, as it does not provide for a decrease of the price corresponding to the decrease in the grading, it would be necessary to resort to the general principles of the law of implied contracts. The county would in that event be entitled to deduct from the contract price for the grading a propor- tion thereof equal to the proportion which the omitted portion of the work of grading would bear to the whole work, with reasonable allowances to either party for any material variations in the expense of such omitted grading arising from conditions different from the average. This being the rule, the provision for extra work is fair to all parties, and can not be supposed to have had a tendency to pre- vent competition in bidding": City S. I. Co. v. Kroh (Cal., September 2, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 940, 941. 32 Kansas. See City of Hutchinson v. White, 80 Kan. 37, 101 Pac. Rep. 458, 460. 33 Kansas. City of Hutchinson v. White, 80 Kan. 37, 101 Pac. Rep. 458, 460. Montana. See Piper v. Murray (Mont., April 22, 1911), 111 Pac. Rep. 669, 671. 34 Kansas. City of Hutchinson v. White, 80 Kan. 37, 101 Pac. Rep. 458, 460. Montana. See Piper v. Murray (Mont., April 22, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 671. 35 Montana. See Piper v. Murray (Mont., April 22, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 671. 247-253 MECHANICS 1 LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 46. 36 248. Same. Estoppel. Additional matter to foot-note 46. 37 249. Same. Arbitration. Additional matter to foot-note 47. 38 250. Same. Void contract. Additional matter to foot-note 49. 30 251. Payments. How considered herein. An agree- ment to pay a portion of the contract price, "as the work progresses" will be construed in a reasonable manner; an day, but only at reasonable intervals. 40 Additional matter to foot-note 53. 41 252. Same. Condition precedent. Additional matter to foot-note 55. 42 253. Same. Waiver. There is a conflict in the authori- ties generally as to whether a provision in the contract that 36Kan*an. City of Hutchinson v. White, 80 Kan. 37, 101 Pac. Rep. 458, 460. 87 Washington. See Holm v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash., July 7, 1910). 109 Pac. Rep. 799, 800. 88 See J| 230-235, this Supplement. SB California. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by amendment of May 1, 1911, to 5 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See | 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. 40 California. Hettinger v. Thlele (Cal. App.), 113 Pac. Rep. 121. See Vulcan I. Works v. Cook (Cal. App., February 10, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 995. 41 Federal. See Fuller & Co. v. Young & Co., 126 Fed. Rep. 343, 61 C. C. A. 245. 42 Colorado. Lombard v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. Rep. 695. Washington. See Green v. City of Ballard, 51 Wash. 149, 98 Pac. Rep. 95. 103 CONTRACTS COMMON CLAUSES. . 253-257 the contractor shall furnish all labor and materials expressly or by implication requires the contractor to pay therefor. 43 254. Same. Application of payments. Additional matter to foot-note 58. 44 Additional matter to foot-note 59. 45 Additional matter to foot-note 60. 46 255. Liens. Statutory provision. California. Additional matter to foot-note 61. 47 256. Same. Condition precedent. Additional matter to foot-note 62. 48 257. Same. Public property. Additional matter to foot-note 63. 49 43 See authorities cited In Covey v. Schllesswohl (Colo., March 6, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 292. See State Board of Agriculture v. Dimick, 46 Colo. 609, 105 Pac. Rep. 1114, 1115. 4* Oregon. See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202, 204. 45 Oregon. See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202, 204. Washington. See Bowles v. Fraser (Wash., July 14, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 812. 46 California. See San Pedro L. Co. v. Schroeter, 156 Cal. 158, 161, 103 Pac. Rep. 888. 47 California. 1201 Code Civ. Proc. was not amended by Act May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 48 Colorado. Provision for furnishing receipted bills construed to mean payment for labor and material: Covey v. Schliesswohl (Colo., March 6, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 292, 293. See State Board of Agriculture v. Dimick, 46 Colo. 609, 613, 105 Pac. Rep. 1114. Washington. By merely agreeing that he will save the owner harmless from liens, the contractor does not waive his own right to a lien: Holm v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash., July 7, 1910), 109 Pac. Rep. 799. 49 See 192, this Supplement, ante. Oklahoma. See Jarrell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167, 168. cc 258-260 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. CHAPTER XIV. BUILDING CONTRACTS (CONTINUED). NON-STATUTORY ORIGINAL CONTRACTS. 258. Method of treatment. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 259. Statutory and non-statutory original contracts compared. Where a person termed the "contractor" is to receive a certain percentage of the cost of construction and is merely to act as the common-law agent of the owner, his contract is not a statutory original contract, even if the amount of the contract price is more than one thousand dol- lars;- and likewise, where the supposed "contractor" is merely an employee of the owner, such as his carpenter, 3 or his architect. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 7. r> $ 260. Same. Implied contract. The provisions of the statute with reference to the statutory original contract are not to be extended to any contract not falling strictly within the letter of the law. Additional matter to foot-note 8. 7 1 California. While the statutory original contract has been abol- ished under the act of May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., and under that act the "original contract" is required to be filed with the statutory bond to limit the liability of the owner to the value of the work performed and materials furnished, It would seem that decisions Indicating what is an "original contract" thus required to be filed would be applicable. 2 California. NV.-.lham v. Chandler, 8 Cal. App. 124, 126, 96 Pac. Rep. 325. See Loma Prleta L. Co. v. HInton, 12 Cal. App. 766, 108 Pac. Etap IN, s California. Fnrnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 271, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. < California. See Loma Prieta L. Co. v. HInton, 12 Cal. App. 766, 108 Pac. Rep. 628. : California. See Lucas v. Gobbl, 10 Cal. App. 648, 108 Pac. Rep. 157. California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Hlggins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 518, 97 Pac. Rep. 414. 420. T California. See Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266. 271, 96 Pac* Rep. 788. 1Q5 NON.STATUTORY ORIGINAL CONTRACTS. SS 261-268 261. Same. Contract price less than one thousand dol- lars. Additional matter to foot-note II. 8 262. Same. Contract price computable. Additional matter to foot-note 14. 9 263. What in no event a statutory original contract. Additional matter to foot-note 15. 10 264. Provisions not applicable to non-statutory orig- inal contracts. Additional matter to foot-note 17. n 265. Same. Writing. Filing. Payments. Additional matter to foot-note 17. 12 266. Same. Notice to owner. Premature payments. Additional matter to foot-note 24. 13 267. Same. Payment in land. Additional matter to foot-note 27. 14 268. Same. Alteration of contract. -Conspiracy. Additional matter to foot-note 28. 15 8 California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Gal. App. 514, 518, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 271, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. Conflict of evidence as to whether contract was for one thousand dollars, assailed, finding upheld: See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 9 California. See Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 272, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. 10 California. See Loma Prieta L. Co. v. Hinton, 12 Cal. App. 766, 108 Pac. Rep. 528. 11 California. See 258, this Supplement, ante, note. 12 California. See 258, this Supplement, ante, note. is California. See Notice to Owner, 526 et seq., this Supplement, post. i* California. See 258, this Supplement, ante, note. 15 California. Pearsall v. Henry, 153 Cal. 314, 95 Pac. Rep. 154, 159; but a new oral agreement, superseding and substituted for those existing, and sufficient in itself as a contract, is not within the rule: Pearsall v. Henry, supra. cc 269-272 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. JQ6 CHAPTER XV. BUILDING CONTRACTS (CONTINUED). STATUTORY ORIGINAL CONTRACTS. A. Statutory Requirements not Essential to the Validity of the Whole Statutory Original Contract. 269. Provisions imposing a penalty. Payments, in general. Statutory provision. Additional matter to foot-notes 1 and 2. 1 270. Same. Scope and object of these provisions. Additional matter to foot-note 4. 2 271. Same. Substantial compliance required. Effect. Additional matter to foot-note 6. 3 Additional matter to foot-note 12. 4 272. Same. Contract price not to be payable in ad- vance of work. Additional matter to foot-note 13. 5 1 California. These provisions are not In the act amending 1184 Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., which, however, provides for a lien for the value of the labor done and materials fur- nished, independently of the contract between the owner and the original contractor, when the original contract and the statutory bond are not filed, In accordance with the requirements of | 1183. 2 California. See I 269, this Supplement, ante, note. s California. Substantial compliance required t Merced L. Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 374, 92 Pac. Rep. 844; Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 860; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 769; 8. c., sub nom., Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 4 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 476; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514. 524, 526, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. See Smith v. Dryden (Cal. App., March 10, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 455; Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 945, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 769; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Colorado. See Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. s See { 269, this Supplement, ante, note. ]()7 STATUTORY ORIGINAL CONTRACTS. SS 273-276 273. Same. Contract price payable in installments, or after completion. Additional matter to foot-note 16. 6 274. Same. Payment of twenty -five per cent thirty -five days after completion. The legislature deemed this reser- vation of twenty-five per cent, under the statute as it stood at the time, a sufficient compliance with the constitutional provision, and it was thought that the legislature had gone as far as it could be expected to go for the protection of the owner, when it declared this twenty-five per cent of the contract price to be sufficient to cover the full value of the labor done and material furnished for the building. 7 Additional matter to foot-notes 24 and 25. 8 275. Same. Object of provision. Additional matter to foot-note 27. 9 276. Same. General rule. Additional matter to foot-note 29. 10 e California. See D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 475. See 269, this Supplement, ante, note. 7 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 475; Hampton v. Christensen, 148 Cal. 729, 737, 84 Pac. Rep. 200, 203. The statutory original contract was abolished by the act of May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See 258 and 269, this Supplement, ante, notes. 8 California. Merced L. Co. v. Bruschl, 152 Cal. 372, 374, 92 Pac. Rep. 844; D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 476; Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 229, 233, 101 Pac. Rep. 691; Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 256, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 769. 9 California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524, 526, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. See 258, 269 and 274, this Supple- ment, ante, notes. 10 California. See Merced L. Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 374, 92 Pac. Rep. 844; Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 860; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 769; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solo- mon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 476. See 258, 269 and 274, this Supplement, ante, notes. 277-281 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. JQg 277. Same. Illustrations. Sufficient compliance. Additional matter to foot-note 30. n Additional matter to foot-note 33. 12 278. Same. What not substantial compliance. A pro- vision of the statutory original contract that the final pay- ment of twenty-five per cent should be made at the comple- tion of the building is an insufficient compliance with the statute, as it existed before the amendment of 1911. 13 Likewise a provision for reserving only twenty per cent of the contract price. 14 279. Same. Provision as to liens. Additional matter to foot-note 36. 15 280. Same. Payment in money. Additional matter to foot-note 37. 16 281. Same. Contractor's bond. Provision unconsti- tutional. Additional matter to foot-note 43. 17 11 California. But if amount payable at completion, otherwise: See Merced L. Co. v. Bruschl, 152 Cal. 372, 374, 92 Pac. Rep. 844. 12 California. Bat otherwise, If there is a reservation of only twenty per cent, of the contract price: D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, IS Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 476; Burnett v. Glaa, 154 Cal. 249, 256. 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 769; Even i IK. nuh there be an unrevealed Intention to retain, or an actual retention of the whole twenty-five per cent, of the contract price (the failure to state the proper amount not being due to a mistake of law): D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, supra. is California. Merced L. Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 374, 92 Pac. Rep. 844. 14 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 476; Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 256, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; see s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 769. 15 California. See 258, 269 and 274, this Supplement, ante, notes. i California. Statutory original contract abolished by Act May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See | 258, 269 and 274, this Supplement, ante, notes. IT California. The act of May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., amending 1183 Code Civ. Proc., provides for a contractor's bond to be filed with the contract, otherwise the property to a lien 1QQ STATUTORY ORIGINAL CONTRACTS. | 282, 283 282. Same. Effect of giving bond. Common-law obli- gation. Additional matter to foot-note 49. 18 Additional matter to foot-note 51. 19 283. Same. Previous decisions concerning bond. Additional matter to foot-note 56. 20 for the reasonable value of the labor done and material furnished for the building. Such bond by its terms must inure to the benefit of any and all persons who perform labor upon or furnish materials to be used in the work described in the contract. See Oklahoma note, post, this section. See Constitutional Aspects, 39, and 258, 269, and 274, this Supple- ment, ante. Statutory bond given besides common law bond, on contract: See City S. I. Co. v. Kro-h, 158 Cal. 308, 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 938; Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 508, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. Kansas. Statutory bond to release liens; held insufficient, not being conditioned "for the payment of all claims which may be the basis of liens," as required by the statute, where the bond recites that it secures the owner against "claims arising from the furnishing of labor or material for the purposes hereinbefore recited," which pur- poses are limited to the erection of one certain building: Deatherage L. Co. v. Miles (Kan., July, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 505. Montana. Distinction between statutory undertaking and statutory bond: See Dear Lodge County v. United States F. & G. Co. (Mont., December 6, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 1060, 1062. Oklahoma. Statutory bond under 4829, "Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903, to prevent attachment of liens: See Daman v. Chamberlain (Okl., July 12, 1910), 110 Pac. Rep. 1056. Compare Clark v. Bank of Hennessey, 14 Okl. 572, 79 Pac. Rep. 217. "To inure" means to take or have effect; to serve to the use, benefit or advantage of a person: Mean v. Collison (Okl., May 9, 1911), 116 Pac. Rep. 195. Washington. Compare Jensen v. Sheard, 49 Wash. 593, 96 Pac. Rep. 2; Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co., 58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024. 18 Colorado. Statutory bond, without consideration, given on public contract; void: See State Board of Agriculture v. Dimick, 46 Colo. 609, 105 Pac. Rep. 1114, 1115. 19 California. See 258, 269, 274 and 281, this Supplement, ante, notes. Washington. Statutory bond given under 5925, Ballinger's Ann. C. & S. ( 6121 Pierce's Code); time of filing notice: See Cascade L. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 503, 106 Pac. Rep. 158; Minneapolis S. & M. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 699, 106 Pac. Rep. 160. See also, Fran- zioli v. Thompson, 55 Wash. 259, 104 Pac. Rep. 278, 280; Griffith v. Rundle, 23 Wash. 453, 63 Pac. Rep. 199, 55 L. R. A. 381. 20 Bond given under statute on public work: See 626 Treatise and this Supplement. Colorado. See State Board of Agriculture v. Dimick, 46 Colo. 609, 105 Pac. Rep. 1114. 283-285 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 59. 21 284. Provisions avoiding certain clauses. Impairment of liens. Statutory provision. Additional matter to foot-note 60. 22 285. Same. Provision, when not applicable. Additional matter to foot-note 62. 23 21 WMhlnffton. Act 1883, c. xxlv., p. 32, $ It See, explaining cases cited in note of Treatise, Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 63 Wash. 231, 101 Pac. Rep. 869, 102 Pac. Rep. 766. 22 California, f 1201 Code Civ. Proc. was not amended by act May 1, 1911, Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 28 California. See note to preceding section. ]_]_]_ REQUIREMENTS ESSENTIAL TO VALIDITY. S 286-288 CHAPTER XVI. BUILDING CONTRACTS (CONTINUED). STATUTORY ORIGINAL CONTRACTS. B. Statutory Requirements Essential to Validity of Con- tract. 286. Scope of discussion. Additional matter to foot-note 2. 1 , 287. Statutory provision. Additional matter to foot-note 3. 2 288. What not essential to validity of contract. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 3 1 See 211, 214, 258, 269, 274 and 281, this Supplement, ante, notes. California. The statutory original contract was abolished by act May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 2 California. The statutory original contract as above stated was omitted in the amendment to 1183 Code Civ. Proc., of May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See 211, 214, 258, 269, 274 and 281, this Supplement, ante, notes. 3 California. See 286 and 287, this Supplement, ante, notes. While the amendment of 1183, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., does not declare the original contract invalid, if not filed, the effect of the failure to file the original contract and the statutory bond required by the amendment of 1911, is the same as before this amendment, so far as the Hen claimants other than the original contractor are con- cerned. Under the provisions of the old law requiring the statutory original contract to be filed, such subclaimants had a lien for the value of the material furnished and used in the structure and for the labor thereon, without regard to the contract price, when such contract was not filed as required by the statute, or when the pro- visions required concerning the statutory original contract were not substantially complied with. There does not, therefore, seem to be any essential change made in the new statute, so far as the liability of the owner's property to respond to liens is concerned. The change seems to be one of form merely. The old law required the owner to do certain things to have the liens limited to the contract price; and the change simply requires him to do certain other things to appar- ently have the same effect. It is true that the language of the new law is not free from some question with regard to this, as in one clause of 1183 Code Civ. Proc., as thus amended, such limitation of the recovery as against the owner's property is apparently left to the 288-293 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 7. 4 289. Construction of provision. Additional matter to foot-note 9. 5 290. Statutory original contract must be entered into before work is commenced. Additional matter to foot-note 10. 6 291. Same. Estoppel as to invalidity of contract. Additional matter to foot-note II. 7 292. The statutory original contract must be in writing. Additional matter to foot-note 14. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 15. 9 ij 293. The statutory original contract must be subscribed. Additional matter to foot-note 18. 10 discretion of the Court, "where it would be equitable to do so"; but other clauses In the same section limit the aggregate liens to the contract price, upon compliance with the provisions of the statute, without reference to any such power of the court. See also, however, in this connection, | 14 of the act, declaring the intent to make the lien "direct." It is to be noted that the provisions of the law, as amended, apply to all contracts, whether the price is more than one thousand dollars or not. 4 California. But see D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92, 101 Pac. Rep. 38. t> California. Subiitantlal compliance: Hubbard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 606, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 528; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 518, 97 Pac. Rep. 414. 420. Compare Merced L. Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 374, 92 Pac. Rep. 844; Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 255, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760. See ( 276, this Supplement, ante. a California. Unless filed before work Is commenced statutory origi- nal contract is void: Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 7 Plans and specifications, see Architect, J 129a et seq., this Supple- ment, ante. s Plans and specifications, see J 129a et seq., this Supplement, ante. California. Statutory original contract abolished by Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See also 5 211, 214, 258, 269, 281, 288, this Sup- plement, ante, and notes. 9 Washington. Building to be an "exact duplicate" of another: See Jones v. Nelson (Wash., December 12, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 88. 10 California. See notes to preceding section. 3 REQUIREMENTS ESSENTIAL TO VALIDITY, gg 294-297 294. Filing contract. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 11 Additional matter to foot-note 21. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 23. 13 295. The duty of filing the contract. Additional matter to foot-note 28. 14 296. Necessity and object of filing contract. Additional matter to foot-note 30. 15 297. Whole contract must be filed. Additional matter to foot-note 32. 16 Additional matter to foot-note 33. 17 11 Duty of officer to Index, and delay in recording or indexing: See Covington v. Fisher, 22 Okl. 207, 97 Pac. Rep. 615, 617; Poplin v. Mun- dell, 27 Kan. 138. 12 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 518, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 13 California. If statutory original contract or memorandum not filed, contract voids Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537; Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 117, 97 Pac. Rep. 152. See Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 483, 94 Pac. Rep. 773. Colorado. See Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14, as to failure to file statutory original contract. i* California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 519, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. See 288, this Supplement, ante, note. is California. It Is intended for the protection of subclaimants: Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 519, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. See 288, this Supplement, ante, note. IB California. See 288, this Supplement, ante; and 299, this Sup- plement, post. Modifications of tbe statutory original contract, if not filed with recorder, are of no effect: Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., Ill Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. As to modifications of original contract, under amendment of 1183, Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., see statute, and 326 et seq., this Supplement, post. IT California. See Hartwell v. Ganahl L. Co., 8 Cal. App. 733, 737, 97 Pac. Rep. 901. Bloom's Sup. 8 298, 299 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 298. Same. Reference to matters dehors the contract. Additional matter to foot-note 34. 18 Additional matter to foot-note 35. 19 299. Same. Where the plans and specifications are referred to. Under provisions of law requiring the statutory original contract to be filed, if the plans and specifications are attached to the contract at the time that they are filed and are filed with it, although subsequently separated, the statute has been complied with, so far as the matter of filing is concerned. 20 No oral evidence can be received to show that the plans and specifications were intended by the parties to form a part of the statutory original contract. It is a question of identification as to the various parts of the contract filed. If it can be determined from an inspection of the writing, without resort to parol testimony what the parties intended to rely upon as their guide in the performance of the things to be done, and if the instrument, as a whole, makes certain what the intention was, it will suffice, and no omission which does not cause uncertainty, or tend to mislead, will be allowed to stand in the way of upholding the contract without resort to parol evidence. 21 Additional matter to foot-note 36. 22 is California. See Hartwell v. Ganahl L. Co., 8 Cal. App. 733, 736, 97 Pac. Rep. 901. 10 Washington. Building to be an "exact duplicate of another"; See Jones v. Nelson (Wash., December 12, 1910), 112 Pac. Rep. 88. 20 California. Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 117, 97 Pac. Rep. 152. 21 California. Coghlan v. Quartararo, 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. The pertinency of the decisions in this chapter will appear upon examination of the amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., which still requires the owner to file the original contract, if he desires to limit the liability of his property, upon foreclosure of liens, to the contract price. 22 California. Plans and specifications, when part of the statutory original contract, must be filed with it: Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537; Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. 111. 117, 97 Pac. Rep. 152; Patten & Davles L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 98 Pac. Rep. 37. J15 REQUIREMENTS ESSENTIAL TO VALIDITY. 8 299-305 Additional matter to foot-note 37. 23 Additional matter to foot-note 38. 24 Additional matter to foot-note 39. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 41. 26 300. Memorandum of contract. Statutory provision. Additional matter to foot-note 43. 27 301. Same. Effect of provision. Additional matter to foot-note 44. 28 302. Same. Purpose and object. Additional matter to foot-note 46. 29 303. Same. What not required in memorandum. Additional matter to foot-note 47. 30 304. Same. Contract, or copy thereof, as memorandum. General principles. Additional matter to foot-note 49. 31 305. Same. Names of all the parties to the contract. Additional matter to foot-note 51. 32 23 California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 255, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760. 24 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 859; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 25 Burnett v. Glas, supra. 26 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, supra. 27 California. The memorandum of contract is abolished under the amendment of 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See 211, 214, 258, 269, 274, 281 and 288, this Supplement, ante, and notes. 28 California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 255, 256, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760. See note to preceding section. 29 See 300, this Supplement, ante, note, so See 300, this Supplement, ante, note, si See 300, this Supplement, ante, note. 32 See 300, this Supplement, ante, note. 306-313 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 306. Same. Description of the property to be affected thereby. Additional matter to foot-note 52. 33 307. Same. Statement of the general character of the work to be done. Additional matter to foot-note 56. 34 308. Same. Statement of work. General principles. Additional matter to foot-note 59. 35 309. Same. Reference to plans and specifications. Additional matter to foot-note 64. 36 Additional matter to foot-note 66. 37 310. Same. Reference to detail drawings. Additional matter to foot-note 70. 38 311. Same. Payments. Additional matter to foot-note 73. 39 312. Time of filing contract or memorandum. Additional matter to foot-note 75. 40 313. Place of filing contract or memorandum. Additional matter to foot-note 80. 41 33 See 300, this Supplement, ante, note. 34 See i 300, this Supplement, ante, note. 35 See 300, this Supplement, ante, note. 36 California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 255, 256, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760. See Plans and Specifications, |$ 129c et seq., this Supplement. 37 California. Burnett v. Glas, supra. 38 See 301, this Supplement, ante. See, also, Plans and Specifica- tions, || 129a et seq., this Supplement. 39 See |301, this Supplement, ante, as to abolition of memorandum. 40 California. See 300, this Supplement, ante, as to memorandum, under amendment of | 1183, Code Civ. Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. And see, as to statutory original contract, 211, 214, 258, 269, 274, 281 and 288, this Supplement, ante. 41 California. See note to preceding section. 7 REQUIREMENTS ESSENTIAL TO VALIDITY. 314. Conspiracy as to contract price. Additional matter to foot-note 81. 42 42 California. The provision quoted in the Treatise was omitted from 1202, under the amendment of May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 315-317 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. CHAPTER XVII. BUILDING CONTRACTS (CONTINUED). 0. Effect of Validity or Invalidity of Statutory Original Contract. 315. Effect of validity of contract. Owner's liability. Additional matter to foot-iiote 2. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 4. 2 318. Same. Valid contract as notice. Additional matter to foot-note 5. s 317. Same. Abandonment of contract. Where the value of the work done and materials furnished at the time of abandonment, measured by the standard of the whole contract price is less than the payments already made to the contractor, there is no balance applicable to the payment of lien claims, under the statutory original contract. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 9. 5 Additional matter to foot-note 10. 6 i California. Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler. 155 Cal. 411. 412. 101 Pac. Rep. 307: D. I. Nofaiger L, Co. r. Waters. 10 Cal. App. 89. 92. 101 Pac. Rep. 3S: Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires. 154 Cal. 111. 115. 97 Pac. Rep. 152. Se C. Scheerer & Co. v. Dem ing. 154 Cal. 138. 97 Pac. Rep. 155. - California. See Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler. 155 Cal. 411. 413. 101 Pac. Rep. 307. J Compare National S. Co. v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co.. 76 Kan. 914. tt Pac. Rep. Ill; s. c.. sub nom. Atkin v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co.. 73 Kan. 76S. S4 Pac. Rep. 1040. California. Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires. 154 Cal. 111. 118. 97 Pac, Rep. 15!. See | 358, this Supplement, post. ^ California. C. Scheerer & Co. v. Dem ing, 154 Cal. 138. 141. 97 Pac, Rep. 155. See Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires. 154 Cal. 111. 115. 97 Pac, Rep. 152: Steiger T. C. 4 P. Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. C98. 703. 704. 100 Pac. Rep. 714. California. Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler. 155 Cal. 411. 412. 101 Pac. Rep. 307: D. I. Nofxiger L, Co, v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92. 101 Pac. Rep. 3S: H. Raphael Co, v. Qrote. 154 Cal. 137. 97 Pac. Rep. 155. See Hoffman-Marks Co. T. Spires. 154 Cal. 111. 115. 97 Pac. Rep. 152; EFFECT OF VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY. 28 318-321 318. Same. How far subclaimants are bound by other terms of valid original contract. 7 Additional matter to foot-note II. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 13. 9 319. Effect of invalidity of statutory original contract. Generally. Additional matter to foot-note 18. 10 320. Same. Classes affected by invalidity of contract. Additional matter to foot-note 20. n Additional matter to foot-note 21. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 23. 13 321. Same. Effect as between parties to the contract. It has more recently been held in California, under the provisions of the statute regarding the statutory original Stelger T. C. & P. "Works v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 703, 704, 100 Pac. Rep. 714; Dahlberg v. Girsch, 157 Cal. 324, 330, 107 Pac. Rep. 616. 7 California. See C. Scheerer & Co. v. Demingr, 154 Cal. 138, 141, 97 Pac. Rep. 153; Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires^ 154 Cal. Ill, 115, 97 Pac. Rep, 152; McCue v. Jackman, 7 Cal. App. 703, 95 Pac. Rep. 673. See i 1183, Code Civ. Proc., as amended, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. Am to Hen for balance of contract price remaining; in the hands of the owner: See Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 413, 101 Pac. Rep. 307. 8 Waahlngrton. See Gate City L. Co. v. City of Montesano (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 799. California. See Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 116, 97 Pac. Rep. 152, explaining; Hampton v. Christensen, 148 Cal. 729, 735, 84 Pac. Rep. 200. 10 California. See Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 483, 94 Fac. Rep. 773; Hubbard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 606, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 528; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 518, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Statutory original contract abolished by Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See H 214, 258, 269, 274, 281, 288, this Supplement, ante, and notes. 11 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higrgrins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 519, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. See note to preceding; section. 12 California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524, 526, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. is California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App, 514, 518, 519, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 321-323 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. contract, since abolished, that the failure to file such contract does not affect the contractual rights of the parties in any manner; that it only affects the funds from which the claim- ants' demands may be paid after a judgment is obtained and the right of lien established ; that the lien law does not permit a judgment for any more than the lien claimants agreed to take. The contract is valid as between the parties, but not as to lien claimants establishing their liens. Such void contract was held by the Appellate Court to be the measure of compensation and the measure of the test of the contractor's right of recovery; but on rehearing in the Supreme Court, the latter Court withheld its approval of the doctrine that the original contractor can recover on an unfiled statutory original contract, deeming the decision of the question unnecessary. 14 Additional matter to foot-note 25. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 27. 1G 322. Same. Contractor's lien on express or implied contract. Additional matter to foot-note 31. 17 323. Same. To what extent contract may be looked to by the parties. As between the original contractor and 14 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524, 526, on rehearing in Supreme Court, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 42, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. is California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App., March 21, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higglns, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 526, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; on hearing in Supreme Court, 97 Pac. Rep. 420; Baker v. Lake E. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 483, 94 Pac. Rep. 773; Smith v. Dryden (Cal. App., March 10, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 455. See Burnett v. Qlas, 154 Cal. 255, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. I" California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, supra. IT California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 526, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420, on hearing in Supreme Court, 97 Pac. Rep. 420. California. Statutory original contract abolished by Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See 5 214, 258, 269, 274, 281, 288, this Supple- ment, ante, and notes. EFFECT OF VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY. 323 324 the owner, it is now held that the contract becomes the basis of recovery. 18 Additional matter to foot-note 34. 19 Additional matter to foot-note 35. 20 324. Same. Lien claimants, other than original con- tractor. The effect of the failure of the contractor or owner to file the statutory original contract was to render the contract void as a limitation of the liability of the owner to the claimants under the original contractor. 21 Additional matter to foot-note 37. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 38. 23 Additional matter to foot-note 39. 24 Additional matter to foot-note 40. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 41. 26 Additional matter to foot-note 43. 27 Additional matter to foot-note 45. 28 is California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 526, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; on hearing in Supreme Court, 97 Pac. Rep. 420. See 321, this Supplement, ante. 19 California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, supra. 20 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, supra. 21 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, supra. See 321, this Supplement, ante. 22 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92, 101 Pac. Rep. 38; Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 483, 94 Pac. Rep. 733; Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 859; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 23 California. Smith v. Dryden (Cal. App., March 10, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 455. 24 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92, 101 Pac. Rep. 38; Hubbard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 606, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 528. 25 California. Hubbard v. Lee, supra. 26 California. See Merced L. Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 374, 92 Pac. Rep. 844. 27 California. See Lucas v. Rea,' 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537; Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 28 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92, 101 Pac. Rep. 38; Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 116, 97 Pac. Rep. 152; Hubbard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 606, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 528; Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157; Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. See Merced L. Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 374, 92 Pac. Rep. 844; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. 324 325 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. J22 Additional matter to foot-note 46. 20 325. Same. How far effective. The invalidity of the contract does not make the owner liable for the negligence of an independent contractor to third parties where under the terms of the contract the owner has no right to exercise any control over the manner and mode of doing the work by the contractor. 30 Additional matter to foot-note 48. 31 Additional matter to foot-note 50. 32 App. 514, 518, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Burnett v. Qlas, 154 Cal. 249, 255. 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Colorado. See Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. 28 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92, 101 Pac. Rep. 38. See Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 413. 101 Pac. Rep. 307. so California. Smith v. Dryden (Cal. App., March 10, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 455. si California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 519, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 82 Compare National S. Co. v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co., 76 Kan. 914, 92 Pac. Rep. 1111; a. c., sub. nom. Atkin v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co., 73 Kan. 768. 84 Pac. Rep. 1040. 123 EXTINCTION OF CONTRACT. SS 326-328 CHAPTER XVIII. BUILDING CONTRACTS (CONTINUED). EXTINCTION OF CONTRACT. 326. Alteration of original contract. Statutory pro- visions. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 327. Same. To what original contracts provisions ap- plicable. Additional matter to foot-note 4. 2 328. Same. Statutory original contract. Modifications of the statutory original contract when not filed with the recorder, as required by the statute before the amendment of 1911 to the Code of Civil Procedure of California, were of no effect. 3 1 Modifying; contract generally: California. See Purltas L. Co. v. Green (Cal. App., March 21, 1911), 115 Pac. Rep. 660; Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & B. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 42, 106 Pac. Rep. 413; Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. See 1184, Code Civ. Proc., as amended, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., changing these provisions. Kansas. See Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan., March 11, 1911), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 374. General rules as to modification of contracts: See Pearsall v. Henry, 153 Cal. 314, 95 Pac. Rep. 154, 159. Oregon. Modification, owing to strict performance producing un- workmanlike and defective results: See Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533, 535. Utah. Modification, releasing liability under original contract; waiver as consideration: See Prye v. Kalbaugh, 34 Utah 306, 97 Pac. Rep. 331, 334. 2 California. The statutory original contract was abolished by act of May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See 214, 258, 269, 274, 281 and 288, this Supplement, ante, notes. s California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 859; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub. nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. See 1183, Code Civ. Proc., as amended, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., requiring modifications of the original contract to be filed in order that the liability of the owner may be limited to the contract price. See, also, note to preceding section. 329-334 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. J24 329. Same. Alterations, how evidenced. Effect. Additional matter to foot-note 15. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 16. 5 Additional matter to foot-note 17. 6 330. Same. Extending credit. Additional matter to foot-note 19. 7 331. Same. Payments. Additional matter to foot-note 22. 8 332. Same. Power of architect to alter contract. Additional matter to foot-note 26. 9 333. Novation. Additional matter to foot-note 27. 10 334. Performance of contract. How considered herein. Additional matter to foot-note 32. 11 4 California. See notes to 327, 328, this Supplement, ante. Utah. Release of old contract and making new contract: See Prye v. Kalbaugh, 34 Utah 306, 97 Pac. Rep. 331. s Oregon. See Williams v. Mount Hood Ry. & P. Co. (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 490, 491, 111 Pac. Rep. 17. Burden of proof on contractor to show modifications: See Adams v. MacKenzie (Oreg.). 114 Pac. Rep. 460. e Oregon. Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533, 535. See McCue v. Whitwell, 156 Mass. 205, 30 N. E. Rep. 1134. 7 California. 1190, Code Civ. Proc., was amended by Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 8 California. See 327 and 328, this Supplement, ante, notes. Waahlngton. See Kracht v. Empire State S. Co. (Wash.), 113 Pac. Rep. 773; Keenan v. Empire State S. Co. (Wash.), 113 Pac. Rep. 636, 638. 8 See Architect, 119 et seq., this Supplement, ante, and notes. - 10 California. See Russell v. Ross, 157 Cal. 174, 181, 106 Pac. Rep. 583; Lemon v. Hubbard, 10 Cal. App. 471, 102 Pac. Rep. 554. Accord and natlnf action: California. See Weller v. Stevens, 12 Cal. App. 779, 108 Pac. Rep. 532; Sirch E. & T. L. v. Garbutt, 13 Cal. App. 435, 110 Pac. Rep. 140, 141. Colorado. See Harvey v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 44 Colo. 258, 99 Pac. Rep. 31, 33. Washington. See Seattle R. & S. Ry. Co. v. Seattle-Tacoma P. Co., (Wash.), 116 Pac. Rep. 289. Wyoming. See City of Rawlins v. Jungquist, 16 Wyo. 403, 96 Pac. Rep. 144. 11 Utah. Place of performance of contract in another state: See generally, Lawson v. Tripp, 34 Utah 28, 95 Pac. Rep. 520. 125 EXTINCTION OF CONTRACT. 335,339 335. Same. Original contract valid. Additional matter to foot-note 37. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 38. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 39. 14 336. Same. Original contract void. Additional matter to foot-note 41. 15 337. Same. Time of performance. Additional matter to foot-note 44. 16 338. Same. General rule. Conditions. Additional matter to foot-note 45. 17 Additional matter to foot-note 46. 18 Additional matter to foot-note 47. 19 339. Same. Excuses for non-performance. The con- tractor is not absolved from performance of the contract by natural obstacles intervening, unless they render perform- 12 California. See C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. is California. See Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 115, 97 Pac. Rep. 152. 14 Kansas. See Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan.), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 374. is California. See 327 and 328, this Supplement, ante, notes. 16 New Mexico. But held a question of law when it depends upon the construction of a' written contract or undisputed extrinsic evi- dence: Cowles v. Hagerman (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 843, 844; s. c., Hagerman v. Cowles, 14 N. M. 422, 94 Pac. Rep. 946; Neher v. Viviani (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 697. When time of performance not stated, reasonable time implied: New Mexico. Hagerman v. Cowles, 14 N. M. 422, 94 Pac. Rep. 946; s. c., Cowles v. Hagerman (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 843. Oregon. Browne v. Sharkey (Oreg.), 115 Pac. Rep. 156. Washington. Berlin M. Works v. Miller, 110 Pac. Rep. 422, 424. See 225, this Supplement, ante. IT California. See Dahlberg v. Girsch, 157 Cal. 324, 330, 107 Pac. Rep. 616. Colorado. See Lombard! v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. Rep. 965, 966. is Utah. Ryan v. Curlew I. & R. Co. (Utah), 104 Pac. Rep. 218, 220. 19 California. See Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 698, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. 339 340 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. J26 ance practically impossible; mere difficulty, or unusual or unexpected expense will not excuse him. 20 Additional matter to foot-note 49. 21 Additional matter to foot-note 50. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 53. 2:{ Additional matter to foot-note 57. 24 Additional matter to foot-note 58. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 59. 26 340. Same. Performance of warranty. Additional matter to foot-note 62. 27 20 California. Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 682, 697, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. But trifling Imperfection* do not affect the right to recover: A. D. McAdam v. Russell, 112 Pac. Rep. 345; but held otherwise, If the owner has not accepted the work or entered Into the use and occupa- tion of the building, where the contract provides that in case of destruction of the building, the contractor should lose the unpaid installments: Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 489, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. 21 Compare Dahlberg v. Girsch, 157 Cal. 324, 330, 107 Pac. Rep. 616. 22 California. Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 42, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. Kanaaa. Collier v. Monger (Kan.), 113 Pac. Rep. 385; 8. c., 75 Kan. 550. 89 Pac. Rep. 1011. 23 Prevention of performance t California. Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 695, 109 Pac. Rep. 29 (and other matters excusing performance) ; Puritas L. Co. v. Green (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 660; Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237, 107 Pac. Rep. 170. See Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 610, 95 Pac. Rep. 382; Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 490, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. Colorado. Lombard! v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. Rep. 695. 24 California. Beck v. Schmidt, 13 Cal. App. 448, 110 Pac. Rep. 455, 456; Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern- R. Co., 158 Cal. 264, 110 Pac. Rep. 951, 955. See Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 -Gal. 692. 696. 109 Pac. Rep. 29. KnuMux. Bailey v. Fredonia G. Co., 82 Kan. 746, 109 Pac. Rep. 411. MlMHourl. See Bean v. Miller, 69 Mo. 384. ReclBlon: California. See Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 696, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. Idaho. See Tatum v. Coast L. Co., 16 Idaho 471, 101 Pac. Rep. 957. Oregon. See Holland v. Rhoades (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 779. Washington. See Evans v. Oregon & W. R. Co., 58 Wash. 429, 108 Pac. Rep. 1095; Young Men's Christian Assoc. v. Gibson, 58 Wash. 307, 108 Pac. Rep. 766, 769. 28 California. Compare Dahlberg v. Girsch, 157 Cal. 324, 330, 107 Pac. Rep. 616. 26 California. See Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern R. Co., 158 Cal. 264, 110 Pac. Rep. 951, 955. 27 Kantian. See International F. Co. v. Caney I. & C. Co. (Kan.), 115 Pac. Rep. 635. 127 EXTINCTION OF CONTRACT. 88 34 } 342 341. Same. ' ' Trifling imperfection. ' ' Additional matter to foot-note 63. 28 Additional matter to foot-note 69. 29 342. Same. Substantial performance generally re- quired. Additional matter to foot-note 71. 30 Washington. See Yundt v. Schultz-Degginger Co. (Wash.), 113 Pac. Rep. 760. 28 Trifling; imperfection: Oregon. Not to extend time for filing; claim of lien: Coffey v. Smith, 52 Greg". 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079, 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 108, 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082; Crane Co. v. Ellis (Oreg.), 114 Pac. Rep. 475. Washington. See A. D. McAdam, Inc. v. Russell (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 345. 29 Oregron. Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533. so California. Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 611, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. See Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 488, 97 Pac. Rep. 723. Colorado. Lombardi v. Overland D. & R. Co., v. Colorado I. W. Co. (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 553, 555. Montana. See Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 672. Oregron. Where there is a substantial performance of a building contract, although not an exact performance, the rules by which proper deductions are to be ascertained are stated as follows: "In case of entire neglect to furnish an item of labor or material, or in case of a defect which may be easily remedied without taking down and reconstructing a substantial portion of the building, this allowance should equal the reasonable expense of supplying or cor- recting the defect. "In case of a defect which could only be remedied by taking down and reconstructing some substantial portion of the building, the allow- ance should be the amount which the building is worth less by reason of the defect than the contract price": Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533, 535, citing and quoting from Manitowoc S. B. Works v. Manitowoc G. Co., 120 Wis. 1, 97 N. W. 515. In the case of Manitowoc S. B. Works v. Manitowoc G. Co. 120 Wis. 1, 97 N. W. Rep. 515, "the court makes three exceptions from the rule that strict compliance with the contract is essential to recovery: " 'First, in favor of laborers who contract to perform personal serv- ices, and without fault of either party fail to complete perform- ance; * * * " 'Secondly, in building; contracts, where the contractor constructs something on the land of another which by oversight, but in good faith effort to perform, fails to entirely satisfy the contract, but is so substantially in compliance therewith that the structure fully accom- plishes the purpose of that contracted for, and the other party vol- untarily accepts the benefit thereof, or where the failure is mere inconsiderable incompleteness, and the expense of completion is easy of ascertainment; * * * " 'Thirdly, where the contractor supplies an article different from or inferior to that promised,' which with knowledge thereof is accepted. S 342 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. "The court conclinleii from these exceptions that the question is not what will reasonably compensate the contractor, but what can the purchaser pay without being put in worse position than if the contract had been performed. The same principle is recognized in Gove & Co. v. I. C. M. & M. Co.* 16 Oreg. 96, 17 Pac. Rep. 740, where it is held that, if the contract has been substantially fulfilled, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action upon it, the defendant being entitled to such a deduction from the contract price as will enable him to complete the work in exact accordance with the contract": Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533, 535. Utah. A party entering into a building contract may not abandon the contract and recover more than the contract price upon a quan- tum meruit; "but th1 Additional matter to foot-note 101. 52 354. Same. Cessation from labor for thirty days. Statutory provision. Under the statute, as it existed prior to the amendments of 191 1, 53 the original contract was not deemed completed until there had been a cessation from labor for thirty days in addition to the occupation of the structure by the owner, or his agent ; that is, the occupation and use, or acceptance, had to be coupled with such cessa- tion to constitute a constructive or statutory completion for the purpose of filing claims of lien. 54 Additional matter to foot-note 102. 53 355. Same. Scope of provision. Additional matter to foot-notes 103 and 104. 56 356. Same. Character of cessation. Additional matter to foot-note 106."' 7 Utah. Ryan v. Curlew I. & R. Co. (Utah), 104 Pac. Rep. 218, 220. Waahlngrton. Acceptance of severable part, under severable con- tract: Compare Berlin M. Works v. Miller (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 422, 424. so California. Compare Dahlbergr v. Girsch, 157 Cal. 324, 330, 107 Pac. Rep. 616. Idaho. Owner taking; ponaeaslon of building:; latent and patent de- fects: See Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Idaho 551, 99 Pac. Rep. 98, 100. 51 California. See 350, ante, and 354, 357, 432 and 43, this Sup- plement, post, and notes. 52 Washington. See Cascade L. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 503, 106 Pac. Rep. 158; Minneapolis S. & M. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 699, 106 Pac. Rep. 160. 63 California. 1187, Code Civ. Proc. 64 California. Baker v. Lake L. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 484, 94 Pac. Rep. 773 (distinguishing a number of cases); Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 988. See, also, 350 and 357, this Supple- ment, ante, and notes; and 432, 433, this Supplement, post, and notes. 55 California. This provision survives in the amendment to 1187, Code of Civ Proc., Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. See 350, this Supplement, ante, note. &6 California. See note to 354, this Supplement, ante. BT California. See note to 354, this Supplement, ante. Idaho. Compare Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765. 133 EXTINCTION OF CONTRACT. SS 357.359 357. Same. As affected by validity or invalidity of original contract. 58 Additional matter to foot-note 108. 39 358. Abandonment of original contract. Additional matter to foot-note 114. 60 359. Same. Owner's liability. Additional matter to foot-note 115. 61 Additional matter to foot-note 117. 62 Missouri. Compare Darling L. Co. v. Harris, 107 Mo. App. 148, 80 S. W. Rep. 688. Nevada. See Tonopah L. Co. v. Nevada A. Co., 30 Nev. 445, 97 Pac. Rep. 636, 639. Wisconsin. See Fitzgerald v. Walsh, 107 Wis. 92, 82 N. W. Rep. 717, 81 Am. St. Rep. 824. 58 California. But see 350, this Supplement, ante, note; and see Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Gal. App. 482, 94 Pac. Rep. 773. Statutory original contract abolished by Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 59 California. Johnson v. La Grave, 102 Cal. 324, 36 Pac. Rep. 651, and Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 94 Pac. Rep. 773 (requiring occupation and use, or acceptance, to be coupled with ces- sation of labor for thirty days to constitute constructive or statutory completion for the purpose of filing claims of lien) supported as to point just stated, but both overruled, so far as repugnant, by Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 988. See 433, this Supplement, post, note. eo California. See C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 144, 97 Pac. Rep. 153; Vulcan I. Works v. Cook (Cal. App.), 114 Pac. Rep. 995; Dahlberg v. Girsch, 157 Cal. 324, 330, 107 Pac. Rep. 616; O'Brien v. Garibaldi (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 249, 252. Rights of assignee of contractor who abandons work: O'Brien v. Garibaldi (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 249. Oregon. See Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533, 534;- Laughlin v. Connors, 54 Oreg. 184, 102 Pac. Rep. 783. Utah. See Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004. 61 Abandonment, act and intent: California. Turner v. Markham, 155 Cal. 562. Oregon. Watts v. Spencer (Oreg.), 94 Pac. Rep. 39 (water rights). Wyoming. Jones v. 'Kepford, 17 Wyo. 468, 100 Pac. Rep. 923 (aban- donment of homestead); Phillips v. Hamilton, 17 Wyo. 41, 95 Pac. Rep. 846 (abandonment of lease). 62 California. Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 115, 97 Pac. Rep. 152; C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 144, 97 Pac. Rep. 155; McCue v. Jackman, 7 Cal. App. 703, 704, 95 Pac. Rep. 673; Steiger T. C. & P. Co. v. City of Sonoma, 9 Cal. App. 698, 100 Pac. Rep. 714; Duffy L. Co. v. Stanton, 9 Cal. App. 38, 98 Pac. Rep. 38. Colorado. Under 4025, Rev. St. 1908, rule In case of abandonment: Rice v. Rhone (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 585, 587; Hottel v. Poudre Valley R. Co., 41 Colo. 370, 92 Pac. Rep. 918, 921. 359 360 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 118. 03 Additional matter to foot-note 119. 04 360. Same. -Justification for abandonment. Additional matter to foot-note 122. 05 Additional matter to foot-note 123. \\nsliinicton. See Gordon v. Glllespie, 58 Wash. 62, 109 Pac. Rep. 109. 110; Young Men's Christian Assoc., 58 Wash. 307, 108 Pac. Rep. 766, 769. 63 California. When under the rule declared by | 1200, as It stood before the amendment of May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.) there was no part of the contract price applicable to the pay- ment of liens, no recovery against the property of the owner could be had; if after making the computation required by that section, no balance remains, there is nothing for the lien claimants: Hoffman- Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cat. Ill, 115, 97 Pac. Rep. 152, distinguishing Hampton v. Christensen, 148 Cal. 729, 84 Pac. Rep. 200, as not a case of abandonment. The construction given In the cane of Hoffman-Mark* Co. v. Spires, supra, to $ 1200, Code Civ. Proc., as It stood before the amendment of 1911, supra, is not unconstitutional: C. Scheerer & Co. v. Demlng, 154 Cal. 138, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. 64 California. Duffy L. Co. v. Stanton, 9 Cal. App. 38, 98 Pac. Rep. 38. 65 California. Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 697, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. ee California. See Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 698, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. 135 CLAIM OF LIEN. 361-364 CHAPTER XIX. CLAIM OF LIEN. NATURE, NECESSITY, AND PURPOSE. 361. Resemblance between statutory provisions as to claim of lien. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 4. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 5. 3 362. Nature of claim of lien. Additional matter to foot-note 7. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 8. 5 Additional matter to foot-note 9. 6 363. Statutory provision. California. Additional matter to foot-note 10. 7 364. When claim of lien is necessary. Additional matter to foot-note 24. 8 1 Kansas. See Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co. 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 835. 2 California. See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 509, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. 3 Oklahoma. See Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. 4 California. Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 413, 101 Pac. Rep. 307. Oklahoma. See Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. 5 Alaska. Claim merely evidence: Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752, 755. Idaho. See Rathbun v. State, 15 Idaho 273,. 97 Pac. Rep. 335, 337. Kansas. See Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 835. Nevada. Porteous D. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135, 136. Oklahoma. Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. 6 California. Hogan v. Bigler, 8 Cal. App. 71, 73, 96 Pac. Rep. 97; Davis v. Treacy, 8 Cal. App. 395, 97 Pac. Rep. 78. 7 California. 1187, Code Civ. Proc., was amended by act of May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911. pp. 1313 et seq. Among other things, the amendment changes the time of filing claim of lien and also the pro- visions relative to the contents of the claim of lien. See subsequent sections for details of changes. 8 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92, 101 Pac. Rep. 38. 365-368 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 365. Purpose of claim of lien. Additional matter to foot-note 31. 9 Additional matter to foot-note 35. 10 366. The necessity of one or more claims of lien. Additional matter to foot-note 36. 21 367. Same. Persons joining in same claim of lien. Additional matter to foot-note 37. 12 368. Same. Several objects and pieces of property. Additional matter to foot-note 42. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 43. 14 9 Nevada. Porteous D. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135. Oklahoma. Vanderberg v. P. T. Walton L. Co., 19 Okl. 169, 92 Pac. Rep. 149, 150. See Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409, 411. But see Murray v. Rlpley, 30 Ark. 568. Oregon. See Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg., 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079. 10 Oklahoma. Albertl v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. 11 California. Claim under several original contracts: See Los An- geles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 517, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Oregon. See Grants Pass B. & T. Co. v. Enterprise M. Co. (Oreg.), 113 Pac. Rep. 859. WaMhlngton. Statute to be liberally construed with regard to the number of claims that may be filed: Lindley v. McGlauflin, 58 Wash. 636, 109 Pac. Rep. 118; s. c., 57 Wash. 581, 107 Pac. Rep. 355. 12 See notes to preceding section. 13 Kanaa*. Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan.), 114 Pac. Rep. 372. 14 Washington. Gilbert-Hunt Co. v. Parry (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 541, 543. 137 CONTENTS OF CLAIM OF LIEN. 8 370-372 CHAPTER XX. CLAIM OF LIEN (CONTINUED). CONTENTS OF CLAIM. 370. General statement as to contents of claim of lien. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 2. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 4. 3 Additional matter to foot-note 8. 4 371. Construction of claims. General principles. Additional matter to foot-note 13. 5 Additional matter to foot-note 14. 6 Additional matter to foot-note 21. 7 372. Same. General rule for determination of suffic- iency of claim. 8 1 Montana. See, generally, Mills v. Olsen (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 33, 34. 2 California. Hogan v. Bigler, 8 Cal. App. 71, 73, 96 Pac. Rep. 97. Kansas. Omitted matters of substance can not be imported into the lien statement upon mere weighing of probabilities: Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 82. 3 California. 1187, Code Civ. Proc., was amended in 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq., and the provision as to the "terms, times given and conditions" of the contract was omitted, and another pro- vision inserted in lieu thereof. Oregon. See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202. 4 Oregon. Litherland v. S. Morton Conn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. 5 California. Hogan v. Bigler, 8 Cal. App. 71, 73. But no strained construction on behalf of subclaimants: Hogan v. Bigler, supra. Kansas. Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 82. Montana. Neuman v. Grant, 36 Mont. 77, 92 Pac. Rep. 43. Nevada. Porteous D. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135. 6 Kansas. Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 'Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 82. Oklahoma. Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 546. 7 Kansas. See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. Oklahoma. But see contra as to subclaimants, not in privity with owner: Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 411. 8 California. See 1187, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 373-375 MECHANICS.LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 373. Same. What generally required. Additional matter to foot-note 25. 9 374. Same. Unnecessary statements. Additional matter to foot-note 29. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 30. n Additional matter to foot-note 32. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 33. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 34. 14 Additional matter to foot-note 37. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 42. 16 375. Statement of demand, after deducting credits and offsets. There is no material difference between a statement of the amount due, without setting out the credits, and a statement of the whole amount of the debit side of the ac- count and also of the credits. 17 Additional matter to foot-note 49. 18 o Montana. Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 356. loKanaan. See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. 11 Oregon. Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1. 102 Pac. Rep. 303. 12 Oregon. Claim need not nliovr that work was done on fixture to mine: Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Oreg.), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 385. See Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg., 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. 13 Oregon. Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. 14 Oregon. Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. is Oregon. But see Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 451. 16 Montana. Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 356. Oregon. See Durkheimer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg.), 104 Pac. Rep. 895, 897. IT California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 646, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. is New Mexleo. "In some jurisdictions, as for instance, Washington, this provision (' Statement of his demands,' 2221, Comp. Laws N. M.) has been quite strictly construed, and it is there held that it must ap- pear what the labor or materials were for which the claim is asserted (See Warren v. Quade, 3 Wash. St. 750, 29 Pac. Rep. 827). In other jurisdictions it is held, more properly, as we believe, that a statement 139 CONTENTS OF CLAIM OF LIEN. 375-379 Additional matter to foot-note 55. 19 376. Same. Object vof provision as to demand. 377. Same. Commingling lienable and non-lienable items. Additional matter to foot-note 60. 20 Additional matter to foot-note 61. 21 378. Same. Demands against two or more buildings. Additional matter to foot-note 63. 22 379. Names required to be stated in claim. In general. Additional matter to foot-note 66. 23 of the general nature of the materials furnished, or labor performed, together with the amount claimed to be due therefor, after deducting all just credits and offsets, is all that is required": Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604. 19 California. Mistake in demand: Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 414, 101 Pac. Rep. 307. Montana. Neuman v. Grant (Mont.), 36 Mont. 77, 92 Pac. Rep. 43. Oregon. Eugene P. M. Co. v. Snell (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 21. Claim statement, known to be untrue, or by the exercise of reason- able diligence could have been found to be false, invalid: Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 451 (under B. & C. Comp., 5683). The receipt of payment is a fact particularly within the knowledge of the claimant, and he is bound to state it truly in his claim of lien: Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 451. 20 Alaska. Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752, 755. Washington. Little Bros. Mill Co. v. Baker, 57 Wash. 311, 106 Pac. Rep. 910; Gilbert-Hunt Co. v. Parry (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 541, 543 (quoting text of Treatise). 21 Colorado. Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573; Rice v. Rhone (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 585. Kansas. Home L. & S. Co. v. School Dist. (Kan.), 115 Pac. Rep. 590. New Mexico. See Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710; Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604. Oregon. 'See Rowen v. Alladio, 51 Oreg. 121, 93 Pac. Rep. 929; Alder- son v. Lee, 52 Oreg. 92, 96 Pac. Rep. 234, 236. Washington. Strandell v. Moran, 49 Wash. 533, 95 Pac. Rep. 1106. See Bellingham v. Linck, 53 Wash. 208, 101 Pac. Rep. 843; Gilbert-Hunt Co. v. Parry (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 541, 543. 22 Oregon. See contra: Crane Co. v. Erie H. Co. (Oreg.), 112 Pac. Rep. 430. 23 Washington. Compare Carney v. Bigham, 51 Wash. 452, 99 Pac. Rep. 21, 22. 5 379-382 MECHANICS- LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 140 Additional matter to foot-note 69. 24 380. Same. Name of owner or reputed owner. Additional matter to foot-note 71. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 72. 26 Additional matter to foot-note 73. 27 Additional matter to foot-note 74. 28 Additional matter to foot-note 75. 29 Additional matter to foot-note 79. 30 381. Same. Employer. Purchaser. Additional matter to foot-note 92. 31 Additional matter to foot-note 93. 32 >; 382. Same. Under void statutory original contract. 33 Additional matter to foot-note 97. :u 24 California. Hogan v. Bigler, 8 Cal. App. 71, 96 Pac. Rep. 97. California. Common law right to change name: See Emery v. Klpp. 154 Cal. 83, 97 Pac. Rep. 17, 19. Idem sonans: "Tasso" and "Dasso," see Napa State Hospital v. Dasso, 153 Cal. 98, 96 Pac. Rep. 355. Washington. Doctrine of Idem Monann an to names: Kelly v. Kuhn- hausen, 51 Wash. 193, 98 Pac. Rep. 603. 25 California. Hogan v. Bigler, 8 Cal. App. 71, 73, 96 Pac. Rep. 97. 26 California. Hogan v. Bigler. 8 Cal. App. 71, 96 Pac. Rep. 97. 27 California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 28 California. See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 2 California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 651, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. so California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 651, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. si California. Hogan v. Bigler, 8 Cal. App. 71, 96 Pac. Rep. 97. "Party to be charged": Compare Harper v. Goldschmidt, 156 Cal. 245, 104 Pac. Rep. 451. Kansas. Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. 32 Kansas. See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. Oregon. See Bonn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202, 204. 33 California. The statutory original contract was abolished by amendment of May 1, 1911, to { 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See $| 258, 268, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. 34 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 495, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249. 97 Pac. Rep. 423; Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 687. 141 CONTENTS OF CLAIM OF LIEN. 382-388 Additional matter to foot-note 98. 35 383. Same. Inferential statements. Additional matter to foot-note 99. 36 384. Same. "Causing" improvement. 385. Same. Name of agent. Additional, matter to foot-note 104. 37 386. Same. Two or more employers or purchasers. 387. Terms, time given, and conditions of contract. In general. Additional matter to foot-note 109. 38 388. Same. Object and construction of provision. Another object of the provision is to inform the owner as to the extent and nature of the lienor's claim, to facilitate an investigation as to its merits. 39 The test of the sufficiency of the claim of lien with respect to this provision is whether it departs so far from the terms and conditions of the contract as to mislead, to the injury of the owner; if there is a substantial agreement between the contract and the claim of lien, so that there could not arise in the mind of the owner any misapprehension as to 35 California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 36 Kansas. See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan., 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. 37 Oregon. Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. See Equitable S. & L.. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 451. 38 California. See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. See Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 229, 232, 101 Pac. Rep. 691. See 1187, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 39 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c. sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 388-392 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT- the extent and nature of the lienor's claim, , it is sufficient; otherwise, not. 40 Additional matter to foot-note 111. 41 Additional matter to foot-note 112. 42 Additional matter to foot-note 114. 43 389. Same. General rules. Additional matter to foot-note 116. 44 Additional matter to foot-note 118. 45 Additional matter to foot-note 119. 46 390. Same. Showing contractual indebtedness. Additional matter to foot-note 122. 47 Additional matter to foot-note 123. 48 391. Same. Setting out terms of original contract. Additional matter to foot-note 125. 49 392. Same. Reference to other papers. 40 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764, s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c. sub nom. Burnett v. Glas. 154 Cal. 249. 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 41 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760. 764; 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249. 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 42 Nevada. Porteous D. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135. 43 California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 645, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. Nevada. Porteous D. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135. 44 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c. sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 45 New Mexico. Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604. 46 New Mexico. Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604. 47 Nevada. But see Porteous D. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135. 48 Oregon. Lltherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. 49 California. See Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 229, 232, 101 Pac. Rep. 691. 3 CONTENTS OF CLAIM OF LIEN. S 393 393. Same. Express and implied agreement as to price. Additional matter to foot-note 128. 50 Additional matter to foot-note 129. 51 Additional matter to foot-note ISO. 52 no California. See Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. si California. But the rule of the text seems to have been changed in the later cases: Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157 (hearing in Supreme Court denied); Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822. See, also, Star M. & L. Co. v. Porter, 4 Cal. App. 470, 88 Pac. Rep. 497. 52 California. "In Star M. & L. Co. v. Porter, 4 Cal. App. 470, 88 Pac. Rep. 497, it was said: 'The notice is, indeed, incorrect in stating as one of the terms of the contract that the claim was based on a quantum meruit, instead of upon a special promise to pay a fixed amount; and this doubtless as a matter of pleading would constitute at common law a material variance, though hardly under existing practice. (Code of Civ. Proc., 469.) But, as we have already said, the technical doctrine of variance has no application to a notice of lien, when all that is required is that the statement of the terms of the contract shall be substantially true. There are, indeed, many cases cited by the appellant, and other cases, which might be con- ceived to hold the contrary doctrine. (Reed v. Norton, 99 Cal. 619, 34 Pac. Rep. 333; Palmer v. Lavigne, 104 Cal. 34, 37 Pac. Rep. 775; Santa Monica L. & M. Co. v. Hege, 119 Cal. 380, 10 Cal. App. 640, 646, 51 Pac. Rep. 555; Wilson v. Nugent, 125 Cal. 283, 57 Pac. Rep. 1008). But these, or most of them, are distinguished from the present case in that it did not appear that the fixed price stated was the market price. In the absence of this fact, the statement would be substantially false and might mislead the owner to his prejudice. But where the fact appears, no injury can result to the owner; nor can the misstatement be regarded as material.' " And it was held that, conceding that the statement in the claim "and the said A. S. Howell agreed to pay said sum of $799.99 so due upon the completion of the work" sets forth an express agreement at the time the material was ordered, it is difficult to see how the appel- lants (owners) were injured, where the evidence showed that this was actually the market value, barring a slight variance on account of an error committed in the account by Mr. Lucas (the claimant) ; the court saying: "But, again, the said notice is at most uncertain as to whether claimants relied upon an express or an implied contract. In the endeavor to comply with the requirement of the statute to set out the 'terms, time given, and conditions of his contract,' this state- ment was made in said notice: 'That the terms, time given and con- dition of the contract between claimants and said A. S. Howell are as follows: The claimants were employed on or about the 6th day of July, 1906, by said A. S. Howell, the original contractor for said building, to furnish lumber and building material to be used in the construction and erection of said building and its additions. That there was no condition attached to said contract, between these claim- ants and said A. S. Howell and no time was set for the payment thereof except that the amount due claimants was to be paid as soon as the work was completed and finished by them.' The foregoing purports to contain all the terms of the contract, and, therefore there 394,395 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 394. Same. Items of account. Additional matter to foot-note 133. 53 Additional matter to foot-note 135. 54 i 395. Same. Nature of labor. Additional matter to foot-note 138. 55 is ground for the contention that the declaration In the previous portion of the notice as to the promise to pay was intended to affirm an express agreement to have been made, to wit, 'upon completion of the work.' There is, indeed, evidence of an account stated, although the agreement was reached after the completion of the work. The exact time, however, is manifestly immaterial if, as it seems quite probable, this was the promise to which claimants referred in their said notice. By construing the phrase "upon completion of the work' as fixing the time when the promise was made the said notice was rendered harmonious and consistent. At any rate, if there be such an uncertainty in this particular as to render the notice, if it were a complaint, subject to a special demurrer, In view of the circum- stances already detailed, It would be technical in the. extreme to hold the defect fatal to the lien. We have thus been led to follow what we conceive to be the just and reasonable rule laid down in the Porter case, supra, which upon examination will be found substan- tially in harmony with the supreme court decisions": Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 646. 647, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. &3 California. See Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 229, 232, 101 Pac. Rep. 691. Colorado. Definition of account t See Donley v. Bailey (Colo.), 110 Pac. Rep. 65, 68. Idaho. See Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 578; s. c., 95 Pac. Rep. 827. Account stated > California. See Stimson M. Co. v. Hughes, 5 Cal. App. 559. Montana. Rules concerning: . Johnson v. Gallatin Valley M. Co., 33 Mont. 83, 98 Pac. Rep. 883. Copy of account not meaning Items of account, compare Moran v. Ebey, 39 Mont. 517, 104 Pac. Rep. 522. - 1 Kan.Him. Home L. & S. Co. v. School Dist. (Kan.), 115 Pac. Rep. 590. Montana. Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 356. 55 Montana. Contra: Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 356.. New Mexico. But see Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603. 604. Oregon. Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Oreg.), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 385. But see Durkhelmer v. Copperopolis C. Co. (Oreg.), 104 Pac. Rep. 895. 897. Oregon. See as to work on fixtures: Rowen v. Alladio, 51 Oreg. 121, 93 Pac. Rep. 929. 145 CONTENTS OF CLAIM OF LIEN. S 8 395-402 Additional matter to foot-note 139. 56 396. Same. Dates. 57 397. Same. "Time given." 57 398. Same. "Cash." 57 399. Description of property. In general. If there appear enough in the description to enable a party familiar with the locality to identify the premises intended to be described with reasonable certainty, to the exclusion of others, it will be sufficient. 58 Additional matter to foot-note 154. 59 Additional matter to foot-note 155. 60 Additional matter to foot-note 156. 61 400. Same. Bona fide purchasers. 401. Same. Object of provision. 402. Same. General rule. Among the identifying facts which are held competent to be considered for deter- mining the sufficiency of the claim of lien are references to adjoining properties, a description of the building which has been constructed, or the fact that the land upon which it is erected is the only property of the owner in that locality. 62 Washington. But see, contra: Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 535, 537. 56 Montana. 'Contra: Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 356. 57 California. See 1187, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 58 California. Patten & Davies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 25, 98 Pac. Rep. 37, 38; Union L. Co. v. Simon, 150 Cal. 758, 89 Pac. Rep. 1077, 1081. so Oregon. Description of logs: See Alderson v. Lee, 52 Oreg. 92, 96 Pac. Rep. 234, 236. eo California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92, 101 Pac. Rep. 38. 61 Utah. See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 258. 62 California. Patten & Davies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 25. 98 Pac. Rep. 37, 38; Union L. Co. v. Simon, 150 Cal. 758, 89 Pac. Rep. 1077, 1081. Bloom's Sup. 10 402-405 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. If the description in the claim of lien identifies the prop- erty by reference to the facts, that is, if it points clearly to a piece of property and there is no other one that will answer the description, it is sufficient. 03 Additional matter to foot-note 164. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 167. 65 403. Same. Special applications. False calls. A de- scription by the proper number of lot but in another block of the same tract was held insufficient, notwithstanding that the owner's contract thus incorrectly described it, and the owner informed the claimant, upon inquiry, that the de- scription in the contract was correct; and the owner was held not estopped. 66 Additional matter to foot-note 168. 67 404. Same. Property identified by name or exclusive character. Additional matter to foot-note 171. 68 j 405. Same. Description as including too much or too little. Additional matter to foot- note 173. 69 03 California. Patten & Davies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 25, 98 Pac. Rep. 37, 38; Union L. Co. v. Simon, 150 Cal. 758, 89 Pac. Rep. 1077, 1081. 64 California. See Patten & Davies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 98 Pac. Rep. 37, 38. 65 California. Patten & Davies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 98 Pac. Rep. 37, 38. 66 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92, 101 Pac. Rep. 38. 67 California. An to mistake In block number, under pleadings: See Patten & Davies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 98 Pac. Rep. 37. See following 1 note. 68 California. Am to mistake in block number, lot described being owned by third person, and no Identifying feature, insufficient: D. I. NofzigeT L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 91, 101 Pac. Rep. 38 (8 1203a, Code Civ. Proc., subsequently passed). See preceding note. 69 Utah. See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 260. Washington. Description of Island, containing acreage owned by third person, insufficient: Brown v. Trimble, 48 Wash. 270, 93 Pac. Rep. 317. CONTENTS OF CLAIM OF LIEN. KS 405-410 Additional matter to foot-note 174. 70 Additional matter to foot-note ISO. 71 Additional matter to foot-note 181. 72 406. Same. Two or more descriptions. Statutory pro- vision. 73 407. Same. Application of provision as to demands against separate buildings. Additional matter to foot-note 187. 74 408. Claim of charge. 409. Signature. A claim of lien of a corporation may be signed in the name of the corporation, "by" a certain person, who is general manager of the company, and such person may verify it on, behalf of the corporation. 75 410. Verification. The purpose of the verification of the claim of lien is not to prove the lien when it is sought to enforce it in a court. It is required as an evidence of good faith and the prima facie support of his claim for the TO Utah. Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. 71 Montana. Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 356. I i ah. Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 261. 72 Montana. Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 356. Utah. See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 258. 73 California. 1188, Code Civ. Proc., was not amended by act May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 74 Montana. See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. Claim on one of group of mines: Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. Oklahoma. But see Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409, 412. 75 California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 667. 410-412 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. J4g purpose of giving notice that the claimant intends to avail himself of his right to a lien, in the particular case. 76 Additional matter to foot-note 201. 77 Additional matter' to foot-note 203. 78 Additional matter to foot-note 208. 79 Additional matter to foot-note 210. 80 Additional matter to foot-note 211. 81 Additional matter to foot-note 213. 82 411. Uncertainty in claim. 83 412. Mistake and error in claim. 84 Additional matter to foot-note 217. 85 Additional matter to foot-note 218. 86 76 California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 476. 77 Oath taken over telephone void: See Fairbanks, Morse & Co. V. Getchell (Cal. App.), 110 Pac. Rep. 331, 332; Sullivan v. First Natl. Bank, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 228, 83 S. W. Rep. 421. A to nlKnln(c affidavit: See Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Getchell (Cal. App.), 110 Pac. Rep. 331, 332 (attachment); Ede v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 53; Pope v. Kirschner, 77 Cal. 152, 19 Pac. Rep. 264. Federal. See Tygart Valley B. Co. v. Vilter Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 184 Fed. Rep. 845. 78 Oregon. Compare Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202. Notary public can not act outnlde of county, in absence of statutory permission: Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Getchell (Cal. App.), 110 Pac. Rep. 331', 332; In re House Bill No. 166, 9 Colo. 628, 21 Pac. Rep. 473; Byrd v. Cochran, 39 Neb. 109, 58 N. W. Rep. 127. 79 Wanhlngton. Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. so California. Compare Richards v. Blaisdell, 12 Cal. App. 101, 106 Pac. Rep. 732. si Jurat nitanlng; evidence allundet See James v. Logan, 82 Kan. 285, 108 Pac. Rep. 81 (attachment). Jurat held Nufnclenti See Cunningham v. Barr, 45 Kan. 158, 25 Pac. Rep. 583. 82 California. See Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 667; A. P. Hotallng & Co. v. Brogan, 12 Cal. App. 500, 107 Pac. Rep. 711. 83 See { 412, post. 84 California. See 1203, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 85 Oregon. See Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 451. se California. See D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 91, 101 Pac. Rep. 38. CONTENTS OF CLAIM OF LIEN. 413-415 413. Unnecessary statements. 87 414. Same. Other illustrations. Additional matter to foot-note 226. 88 Additional matter to foot-note 227. 89 Additional matter to foot-note 229. 90 Additional matter to foot-note 231. 91 415. Amendment of claim. Additional matter to foot-note 233. 92 87 California. See 1187, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 88 Kansas. Fossett v. Rock Island Mfg. Co., 76 'Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 835. 89 California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 645, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537; Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 414, 101 Pac. Rep. 307. California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 651, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. o Oregon. See Equitable S. & L. Assoc. (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 451. i Alaska. Alaska P. M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752, 755. Colorado. Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. Kansas. Home L. & S. Co. v. School Dist. (Kan.), 115 Pac. Rep. 590. Oregon. See Alderson v. Lee, 52 Oreg. 92, 96 Pac. Rep. 234, 236. Washington. Strandell v. Moran, 49 Wash. 533, 95 Pac. Rep. 1106; Bellingham v. Linck, 53 Wash. 208, 101 Pac. Rep. 843, 844. 92 Washington. Nnmfoer of claims may be filed: Lindley v. Mc- Glauflin, 58 Wash. 636, 109 Pac. Rep. 118; s. c., 57 Wash. 581, 107 Pac. Rep. 355. Washington. Claim can not be amended without order of court, under statute; permission to amend complaint is not permission to amend claim of lien: Brown v. Trimble, 48 Wash. 270, 93 Pac. Rep. 317. Amendment allowed under statute expressly authorizing; same, no person being injured: Oklahoma. Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 546. Washington. Stetson & Post L. Co. v. W. & J. Sloane Co. (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 248; Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash., 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729; Malfa v. Crisp, 52 Wash. 509, 100 Pac. Rep. 1012 (number of lot in a certain block allowed to be changed); Lind- ley v. McGlauflin, 58 Wash. 636, 109 Pac. Rep. 118; s. c., 57 Wash. 581, 107 Pac. Rep. 355. Such amendment may be allowed after the legal time for filing claim of lien: Stetson & Post L. Co. v. W. & J. Sloane Co., supra. Claim may be amended as pleadings are: Malfa v. Crisp, supra. Appellate court will treat defective claim as a defective pleading: Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. 416-421 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. '-CHAPTER XXI. CLAIM OF LIEN (CONTINUED). FILING CLAIM. 416. Filing claim. In general. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 4. 2 417. Statutory provisions. Additional matter to foot-note 7. 3 418. Purpose of provision requiring claims to be filed within a certain time. Additional matter to foot-note 12. 4 419. Same. In case of void contract.-"' 420. Place of filing claim for record.' 5 $ 421. Original contract void. Necessity of filing claim. Additional matter to foot-note 19. 7 1 Oklahoma. Where the property i- In the hand* of a reeelver and claims were presented to the court and heard by a referee and on an agreed statement of facts judgment was rendered, filing of formal claim unnecessary, where under the statute the claim would have to be filed with the clerk of the court: Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jack- son, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409, 412. 2 See $ 354 et seq., this Supplement, ante, and notes. 3 California. Amended by act of May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Am. Its. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 4 Oregon. Compare Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. & California. The statutory original contract was abolished by amendment of May 1, 1911, to f 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See f{ 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. e Compare "Filing Contract," 294 et seq., Treatise, and Supplement. ^ Colorado. Compare Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo., 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. 151 FILING CLAIM OP LIEN. SS 422-426 422. Time of filing claim. In general. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 21. 9 423. Same. Computation of time. Additional matter to foot-note 24. 10 424. Time of filing, when not fixed by statute. 11 425. Notice of completion or cessation of work. Statu- tory provision. Additional matter to foot-note 32. 12 426. Same. Purpose and scope of provision. Where the notice of completion is prematurely filed by the owner before actual completion or substantial completion, and the owner and claimant regard the work as not completed, the 8 California. Hubbard v. Lee, 10 Gal. App. 477, 480, 102 Pac. Rep. 528; s. c., 6 Cal. App. 602, 92 Pac. Rep. 744. Colorado. Rice v. Rhone (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 585, 588. But see Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. Kansas. Badger L. Co. v. Martin (Kan.), 112 Pac. Rep. 104; Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 835. Oregon. Grants Pass B. & T. Co. v. Empire M. Co. (Oreg-.), 113 Pac. Rep. 859. See Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 451. Washington. Pacific L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869, 870. 9 California. Hubbard v. Lee, 10 Cal. App. 477, 480, 102 Pac. Rep. 528; s. c., 6 Cal. App. 602, 609, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 484, 94 Pac. Rep. 773. New Mexico. But see Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 342; Nash v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 344; Metz v. Romero (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 344. Washington. Lindley v. McGlauflin, 58 Wash. 636, 109 Pac. Rep. 118; s. c., 57 Wash. 581, 107 Pac. Rep. 355. 10 New Mexico. See Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 342; Nash v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 344; Metz v. Romero (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 344. Washington. Cascade L. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 503, 106 Pac. Rep. 158; Minneapolis S. & M. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 699, 106* Pac. Rep. 160. 11 California. See 1187, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 12 California. See 1187, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 426-428 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. J52 filing of such notice does not afford the owner protection as a limitation of time for filing claims of lien. 13 427. Same. Failure of owner to file notice. 14 Where no notice of completion was filed by the owner, owner's claimants could, before the amendment of 1911, file their claims of lien within ninety days after the actual completion, or 120 days from cessation of work, if the work was not ac- tually completed, that is, ninety days after the cessation of work for thirty days. 15 428. Same. In case of structures. The time of filing a claim of lien by the owner's claimants before the amend- ments of 1911 to Code Civ. Proc. 1187, did not run from the time of such claimants' ceasing work but from the time of the actual or constructive completion or from the cessa- tion of work for thirty days, in the absence of a notice of completion or of cessation. 16 Where several years were consumed in the alterations of a building and the work was done in a somewhat frag- mentary manner, but was not done in separate and distinct sections, and material was not furnished under separate and distinct contracts, but the work was one entire under- taking, the time for filing claims commenced to run from the time when the alterations were actually or constructively completed. 17 Additional matter to foot-note 42. 18 13 California. Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 229, 232, 101 Pac. Rep. 691. See Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 484, 94 Pac. Rep. 773; Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984. 14 California. See Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 269. See 428, this Supplement, post. is California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 270, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. 16 California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 269. IT California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 268, 96 Pac. Rep. 788 (before the amendments of 1911). is Original contractors Colorado. Three monthn after completion of building:: Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. Oregon. After completion of his contract, and not after completion 428 429 FILING CLAIM OF LIEN. Additional matter to foot-note 43. 19 Additional matter to foot-note 44. 20 Additional matter to foot-note 45. 21 Additional matter to foot-note 48. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 49. 23 429. Same. General rule. Additional matter to foot-note 52. 24 of building, time commences to run: Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 19 Subcontractors: Colorado. Within two months next after completion of building:: Rice v. Rhone (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 585, 588 (under 4033, Rev. St. 1908), (3 Mill's Ann. St., Rev. Supp.) ; Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14 (under Sess. Laws 1899, p. 261, c. 118). Kansas. During sixty days following furnishing; of labor or ma- terial: Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 835. New Mexico. See Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 342; Nash v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 344; Metz v. Romero (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 344. Oregon. See Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 451. 20 Owner's material-man: Washington. See Rieflin v. Graf ton (Wash.), 115 Pac. Rep. 851. 21 Contractor's material-man: Idaho. See Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 26; Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 771. Oregon. Thirty days after completion of building: Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082 (under B. & C. Comp., 5644). Washington. Ninety days after the last item of material Is sold and delivered: Rasmussen v. Liming, 50 Wash. 184, 96 Pac. Rep. 1044; Brown v. Trimble, 48 Wash. 270, 93 Pac. Rep. 317 (under Ballinger's Ann. Codes & Stats., 5904). 22 Contractor's laborers: Washington. See Brown v. Trimble, 48 Wash. 270, 93 Pac. Rep. 317. 23 California. Trifling imperfection in completion does not prevent time running within which to file claims of lien. Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 488, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. See 1187, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 24 Colorado. Under Sess. Laws 1809, p. 26, c. 118, the principal con- tractor has three months after completion, and his subclaimants or "subcontractors" within two months after completion: Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. Idaho. Under one continuous contract for furnishing materials, time to file runs from last item of account: Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 767; and see Darlington L. Co. v. Har- ris. 107 Mo. App, 148, 80 S. W. Rep. 688; but where material is fur- 430 431 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 430. Time of filing claim. Certificate of architect. Additional matter to foot-note ;">:{. - r> 431. Same. Substantial or actual completion. The furnishing of materials gratuitously to replace defective material, or doing trifling work, is generally held not to operate to extend the time within which liens should be filed, particularly when it is in the nature of a subterfuge. 26 But in California it was held that where the work was part of that to be performed under the original contract, the contractor had the statutory period after the actual com- pletion of a comparatively trifling part of the work within which to file his lien. 27 And if the owner claims that the work is not completed and some trifling work is done there- after to complete, the owner is estopped to claim that the contract was previously completed. 28 If the owner enters into occupation of the improvements while the work of alteration is in active progress and about nished for a structure apparently being 1 erected under one original contract, but In reality under several, the material-man without no- tice may file his claim within the prescribed time after furnishing the last Item, where the statute provides a limitation for filing claims after the last Item: Valley L. Co. v. Drlessel, supra; Darlington L. Co. v. Harris, supra. But If the material-man had notice of the several original contracts, he can not tack the last item of his account to the first to extend the time for filing claims of Hen: Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, supra. 25 Oregon. The delay In Usiiliin arbitrator'* certificate provided for by the contract does not extend the time to file claim: Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c.. 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 26 Idaho. Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nlckerson, 13 Idaho 682. 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 26; Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765. KIIHMIIH. Badger L. Co. v. Parker (Kan.), 116 Pac. Rep. 242. Nevada. Tonopah L. Co. v. Nevada A. Co., 30 Nev. 445, 97 Pac. Rep. 636, 639. Oklahoma. Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344. 106 Pac. Rep. 830. Oregon. Crane Co. v. Ellis (Oreg.), 114 Pac. Rep. 475; Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c.. 52 Oreg. 646, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. Washington. Rieflin v. Grafton (Wash.), 115 Pac. Rep. 851. 27 California. Rockwell v. Light, 6 Cal. App. 563, 92 Pac. Rep. 649. 28 California. AH to entoppel of owner by HtatementB relative to completion i See Hubbard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 608, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 538. 155 FILING CLAIM OF LIEN. S| 43 half completed so that part can be occupied, the occupation of the building not being inconsistent with further work on the same, the time for filing liens does not start to run by reason of such occupation. 29 Additional matter to foot-note 54. 30 432. Same. Abandonment of the work. Where the claim is filed within time after the actual completion of the building but is not filed within time after a notice of cessa- tion and abandonment filed by the owner has set running the statutory time for filing the claim, the lien is lost. 31 Additional matter to foot-note 57. 32 433. Same. Thirty days' cessation from labor. Sec- tion 1187 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it was amended in 1897 provided first, after declaring that trivial imperfec- tions should not avail to avoid completion, that the occupa- tion or use of a building, improvement or structure by the owner or his representative, together with cessation from labor for thirty days upon it, or, second, the acceptance by the owner or his agent of the building, together with cessa- tion from labor for thirty days upon it, should, for the purposes of lien claimants, be deemed equivalent to a com- 29 California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 CaT. App. 268, 269, 96 Pac. Rep. 728. so California. See Rockwell v. Light, 6 Cal. App. 563, 92 Pac. Rep. 649. But see Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 488, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. New Mexico. Time for filing subcontractor's claim does not com- mence to run from nor await the completion of the building; the statute fixes the time after which the claim can not be filed and does not fix the time during which it may be filed: Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 342; Nash v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 344; Metz v. Romero (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 344 (disclaiming California and Kansas doctrines as to premature filing, in this regard). Oregon. But see Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 31 California. Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 986 (before the amendments of 1911). 32 California. See Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 988; and see 433, this Supplement, post. Johnson v. La Grave, 102 Cal. 324, 326, 36 Pac. Rep. 651, is overruled in Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 988, so far as repugnant. The latter case, however, was that of a valid contract. 433-435 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. ^55 pletion. Thus, while under the old law unfinished structures were deemed constructively completed when there had been cessation from labor for thirty days, under the law as amended in 1897, they were not deemed constructively completed, and the owner to set the time running for the filing of claims of lien had first to file his notice of cessation. Again, under the law prior to 1897, either occupation or acceptance was deemed a completion which set in motion the time for filing claims; but under the amendment of 1897, either or both the occupation and the acceptance must be coupled with cessation from labor for thirty days upon the structure before the constructive completion was estab- lished and the time set running. Also, under the amend- ment of 1897, constructive completion by way of occupation or acceptance was made to apply to all cases, whether the work had been performed under contract or not, but under the law prior thereto, such constructive completion was declared to apply only "in case of contracts." 33 Additional matter to foot-note 59. 34 434. Same. Agreements affecting time of filing claims. Giving credit. 35 435. Same. Void contract. Additional matter to foot-note 71. 36 Additional matter to foot-note 72. 37 33 California. Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 987 (citing Marble L. Co. v. Lordsburg H. Co., 96 Cal. 332, 31 Pac. Rep. 164). See Baker v. Lake L. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 94 Pac. Rep. 773 (use and occupation or acceptance must be coupled with cessa- tion for thirty days to constitute constructive completion). 34 California. See Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 227, 232, 101 Pac. Rep. 691. as See 11187, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 36 California. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by amendment of May 1, 1911, to I 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See {258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. Colorado. Compare Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. 37 California. See Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 269, 96 Pac. Rep. 728. 157 FILING CLAIM OF LIEN. 82 4.35 4,37 436. Same. Mines and mining claims. Additional matter to foot-note 78. 38 Additional matter to foot-note 83. 39 437. Same. Grading, etc. 40 38 California. Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 986. 39 New Mexico. Owner's claimant, within ninety days after comple- tion of contract: Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 605. 40 See, generally, 133, 139, 156 and 166 et seq., Treatise and Sup- plement. 438-443 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. CHAPTER XXII. LIMITATION ON LIENS. EXTENT OF LIENS. 438. Territorial or "property" extent of lien. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 5. 2 439. Same. Statutory provision/ 5 440. Same. Space for convenient use and occupation. Additional matter to foot-note 10. 4 Additional matter to foot-note II. 5 441. Same. Structures. Illustrations. ? 442. Same. Land affected when building is destroyed or removed. Additional matter to foot-note 15. 6 443. Same. Mines and mining claims. Additional matter to foot-note 16." 1 As to logger's Hen: See Alderson v. Lee, 62 Oreg. 92. 96 Pac. Rep. 234. 236; Grimm v. Pacific C. Co., 50 Wash. 415, 97 Pac. Rep. 297; O'Connor v. Burnham, 49 Wash. 443, 95 Pac. Rep. 1013. As to Hen extending to appurtenances: See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 260. 2 Montana. Definition of "property": See Helena W. Co. v. Settles, 37 Mont. 237, 95 Pac. Rep. 838. 3 California. See JJ185, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Am. Its. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 4 Utah. Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254. 259. B Ala*kn. Lien can not include another structure against which claim of lien has not been filed, and for which materials not fur- nished or used: Burr v. House, 3 Alaska 641, 649. I'tah. Volker-Scowcroft L. Co. v. Vance (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 970, 974; s. c., 33 Utah 74, 88 Pac. Rep. 896. e California. Watson v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 560, 564, 108 Pac. Hep. 48; Watson v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 566, 108 Pac. Rep. 50. Montana. See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. I'tah. Compare Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. T Compare Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. 159 EXTENT OF LIENS. SS 444.449 444. Same. Several mining claims. Additional matter to foot-note 18. 8 445. Same. Mining machinery. .Additional matter to foot-note 19. 9 Additional matter to foot-note 22. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 23. 11 446. Same. Grading and other work. Lot. 12 447. Property viewed as an entirety. Additional matter to foot-note 28. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 29. 14 Additional matter to foot-note 3*0. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 31. 16 448. Same. Distinct objects on one parcel of land. 449. Same. Railroads, canals, gas-works and water- works. Additional matter to foot-note 34. 1T 8 Montana. Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. Oklahoma. But see Peaceable Creek C. Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okl. 1, 108 Pac. Rep. 409, 412. 9 New Mexico. Mine held as required for the convenient use and occupation of mill for which material was furnished: Steams-Roger Mfg-. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710. 10 Utah. See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 257. 11 Utah. Compare Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 258. 12 California. 1191, Code Civ. Proc., was not amended by act May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 13 Idaho. See Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Idaho 551, 99 Pac. Rep. 98, 101. Montana. Extent of lien in case other than mine: See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 356. i* Colorado. Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. 15 Colorado. Lien is on entire railroad; claim of lien need not segregate amount in each county: Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. 16 Washington. See Cornelius v. Washington S. Laundry, 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. IT Colorado. See Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. 449-451 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 36. 18 450. Same. Lien on building alone. False representa- tions as to ownership. 451. Same. Mining claims and mines. Additional matter to foot-note 38. 10 lilnlio. Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 578; s. c., 95 Pac. Rep. 827. \\noiiiiiKtoii. Lien on building's, structures, ditches, etc., constitut- ing a power and irrigation plant: See Gilbert-Hunt Co. v. Parry (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 541, 542. is New Mexico. See Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300. 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710. 10 Montana. As to rule now provided by 5 7293, Rev. Codes, as to extent of lien on mining claims: See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Oo., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 356. Claim need not be limited to specific portion of property on which work was done: Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., supra. N-\V Mexico. Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710. Oregon. See Escott v. Crescent C. & N. Co. (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 452, 454, 455. Utah. Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254. 261. I mil. "Taking the lien in question as an illustration, if any one had furnished material for the shafthouse and hoisting works and had filed a lien upon these structures alone, and this were permitted, the very entrance to the mine could be disconnected from the mine itself. The shafthouse and hoisting works would thus become useless without the mine, and it would be a useless thing without an en- trance thereto. If a portion of the mine may be thus segregated, it may result in dismembering and in effect destroying almost the entire value of the mine as such. No one would contend that, if a mechanic had made repairs upon an expensive entrance to a hotel or other private structure, such as the heating plant connected with such struc- ture, he could claim a lien upon the entrance or heating plant alone, and In enforcing the lien could, by judicial process, sell the entrance or heating plant to one person while the main structure belonged to another, and in this way practically destroy the use of the entire structure until the owner, or some purchaser of the main structure, yielded to the terms of the purchaser of the entrance or heating plant. The doctrine which, for the purpose of mechanics' liens, treats mines and mining claims that are being actively operated and worked as a unit the same as other structures, is so manifestly just and equitable, and so well responds to the general utility involved, that it seems like a work of supererogation to present any arguments or reasons why it should prevail. It has, however, been held that for improvements made on a mill site no lien can ordlnarly be ac- quired against a mine or mining claim. Colorado Iron Works v. Taylor, 12 Colo. App. 451, 55 Pac. Rep. 942. This ruling is based upon the ground that neither the mill nor mill site is necessarily a part of the mine. In this case it was not shown what kind of a mill it was. 161 EXTENT OF LIENS. 451-455 Additional matter to foot-note 39. 20 452. The lien as limited by contract. 21 453. Same. Statutory provision. 21 454. Same. General interpretation of provision. Additional matter to foot-note 46. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 47. 23 455. Same. Contract as notice. Where the subcon- tractor agrees to perform the work under the original con- tract, the terms and conditions of which are made a part of the subcontract, if the contractor can not recover on the original contract by reason of the destruction of the building before completion, the subcontractor can not re- cover against the contractor. 24 Additional matter to foot-note 49. 25 except that it was erected on the mining claims, and thus became a part of the mining claims; and hence the rule announced in the Colo- rado case did not apply": Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah, June 12, 1909), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 261. 20 Montana. Compare Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. Utah. Compare Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 108 Pac. Rep. 254, 261. 21 California. See 1183, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 22 California. McCue v. Jackman, 7 Gal. App. 703, 95 Pac. Rep. 673; Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 413, 101 Pac. Rep. 307. Colorado. As to abandonment: See Rice v. Rhone (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 585, 587. Kansas. Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1005; Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 836. Oklahoma. Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. Washington. But see Rieflin v. Grafton (Wash.), 115 Pac. Rep. 851, 853. 23 California. Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 412, 101 Pac. Rep. 307; D. L. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89, 92, 101 Pac. Rep. 38. Kansas. Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 835. 24 California. Watson v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 560, 565, 108 Pac. Rep. 48; Watson v. Alta I. Co., 12 Cal. App. 566, 108 Pac. Rep. 50. 25 Oregon. Compare Crane Co. v. Erie H. Co. (Oreg.), 112 Pac. Rep. 430. Bloom's Sup. 11 456-458 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 162 456. Same. Price. Value. Additional matter to foot-note 52. 26 S 457. Same. Contract of subcontractor and contractor. Additional matter to foot-note 53. 27 458. Same. Claimants under subcontractors. Additional matter to foot-note 54. 28 26 "Price" as Indicating' money or some other equivalent in contract for sale of mine: Compare Kinard v. Jordan, 10 Cal. App. 219, 101 Pac. Rep. 696, 698. 27 Oregon. Compare Crane Co. v. Erie H. Co. (Oregr.), 112 Pac. Rep. 430. 28 Idaho. Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Idaho 651, 99 Pac. Rep. 98, 100. ESTATES SUBJECT BY CONTRACT. SR 459-461 CHAPTER XXIII. LIMITATIONS ON LIENS (CONTINUED). ESTATES AND INTERESTS SUBJECT TO LIENS. I. BY CONTRACT. 459. Plan of discussion. 460. Estates or interests bound by contractual relation with the holder thereof. Statutory provision. Additional matter to foot-note 3. 1 461. Same. General rule. Additional matter to foot-note 4. 2 1 Husband and wife: Federal. See Healey I. M. Co. v. Green (C. C., N. C.), 181 Fed. Rep. 890. Kansas. Transfer of owner's account to name of husband: See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. Husband as agent of wife: See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, supra. Acquirement of other Interests by wife: See Robert Garrett L.. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 181. Oklahoma. Husband as agent of wife: Bloch v. Pearson, 19 Okl. 422, 91 Pac. Rep. 714. Husband's Interest also bound: See Bloch v. Pearson, supra. 2 Arizona. Lien not given on mere option on mining property: Harper v. Independence D. Co. (Ariz.), 108 Pac. Rep. 701, 704. California. Right of possession to mine for oil, real estate: Gra- ciosa O. Co. v. Santa Barbara County, 155 Gal. 140, 99 Pac. Rep. 483, 486 (regarding taxation). Colorado. Right to use water for irrigation, real estate: Davis v. Randall, 44 Colo. 488, 99 Pac. Rep. 322, 324. Idaho. Title subject to be defeated upon condition subsequent: Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 578, 95 Pac. Rep. 827. Rights held mnder Carey Act for construction of canal: Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 792, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Leasehold or other .estate: Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., supra. Possessory rights of locator on mining property, fee in Federal government: Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 792, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Husband and wife: Idaho. See Larson v. Carter, 14 Idaho 511, 94 Pac. Rep. 825. 461-463 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 3 462. Same. Fee or legal title subject to lien. Additional matter to foot-note 6. 4 463. Same. Vendee being in possession. Additional matter to foot-note 8. 5 Kamia*. Badger L. Co. v. Malone, 8 Kan. App. 692, 54 Pac. Rep. 692; Chicago L. Co. v. Osborn, 40 Kan. 168, 19 Pac. Rep. 656; Robert Qar- rett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 181. IliiMband and wife: See Robert Garrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 180. Where a person IN In undisputed possession under a claim of right of possession when the improvement is made, in the absence of a contrary showing, a conveyance will be held to be a ratification of a prior equitable title, or merging in the legal title, and the lien will be held to attach to the whole estate: . Robert Garrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 181, explaining Lumber Co. v. Fretz, 51 Kan. 134, 32 Pac. Rep. 908. Oklahoma. Bloch v. Pearson, 19 Okl. 422, 91 Pac. Rep. 714. Interest of lessee of school lands, fee in United States: Bloch v. Pearson, 19 Okl. 422, 91 Pac. Rep. 714; Jarrell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167; Crutcher v. Bloch, 19 Okl. 246, 91 Pac. Rep. 895. Oregon. Alaska P. Co. v. Bingham (Oreg.), 115 Pac. Rep. 159, 160. It Is always in the power of the claimant to ascertain the Interest therein of the person with whom he is contracting, and if he neglects this necessary precaution, the courts ought to allow him to suffer the consequences of his negligence, rather than to saddle the loss upon innocent parties by a forced construction of the law: Alaska P. Co. v. Bingham (Oreg.), 115 Pac. Rep. 159, 160. S Arlaona. Owner of mere option neither vendee nor agent of owner: Harper v. Independence D. Co. (Ariz.), 108 Pac. Rep. 701, 704. Kansas. Potter v. Conley (Kan.), 112 Pac. Rep. 608. But mere license to explore for minerals, and take oil as personal property, only incorporeal hereditament, profit a prendre: See Phil- lips v. Springfield C. O. Co., 76 Kan. 783, 92 Pac. Rep. 1119; Martin v. Springfield C. O. Co., 77 Kan. 861, 92 Pac. Rep. 1119. Oklahoma. Tenancy from month to month; estate for life or years, mortgagor's right of redemption, interest of person in possession claiming title: See Crutcher v. Bloch, 19 Okl. 246, 91 Pac. Rep. 895. 4 Kansas. But see Robert Garrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 181. 3 Colorado. As to first Colorado note, see Hall v. Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 415 (regarding Shapleigh v. Hull, 21 Colo. 419, 41 Pac. Rep. 1108, interest of both vendor and vendee bound). Oregon. See Alaska P. Co. v. Bingham (Oreg.), 115 Pac. Rep. 159. Utah. Belknap v. Condon, 34 Utah, 213, 97 Pac. Rep. Ill, 114. Claimant can not change account from constructing vendee to vendor: Belknap v. Condon, 34 Utah 213, 97 Pac. Ill, 114. A mere expectation by the owner that the purchaser will make im- provements is not sufficient to establish the relation of principal and agent between the vendor and vendee, so as to impose a lien upon the interest of the vendor; nor would mere permission by the vendor ESTATES SUBJECT BY CONTRACT. SS 4~64-467 464. Same. Lessee being in possession. Additional matter to foot-note 10. 6 Additional matter to foot-note 14. 7 465. Same. Title being held in trust. Additional matter to foot-note II. 8 466. Same. Interest of vendee in possession bound. Additional matter to foot-note 12. 9 467. Same. Interest of lessee bound. Additional matter to foot-note 14. 10 to the vendee to make such improvements, nor would mere knowledge or acquiescence on the part of the owner: Belknap v. Condon, 34 Utah 213, 97 Pac. Rep. Ill, 114. 6 Arizona. Contra, as to mere option: Harper v. Independence D. Co. (Ariz.), 108 Pac. Rep. 701, 704. Kansas. Estate of owner not subject to lien, unless lessee, agent or trustee of the owner: Potter v. Conley (Kan.), 112 Pac. Rep. 608 (under 649, Code Civ. Proc. Gen. Stat. 1909, 6244). OH or gas lease conveying no present vested interest in the oil and gas in place, not subject to lien: Phillips v. Springfield C. O. Co., 76 Kan. 783, 92 Pac. Rep. 1119; Martin v. Springfield C. O. Co. 77 Kan. 851, 92 Pac. Rep. 1119. Utah. Belknap v. Condon, 34 Utah 213, 97 Pac. Rep. Ill, 113, 114 (under 1372, Cop. Laws 1907). Washington. Shaw v. Spencer, 57 Wash. 587, 107 Pac. Rep. 383. Interest of lessor (fee) bound; interest of lessee not bound: See Housekeeper v. Livingstone, 48 Wash. 209, 93 Pac. Rep. 217. Obligation to repair on lessee, unless otherwise expressly agreed: Hockersmith v. Ferguson (Wash.), 116 Pac. Rep. 11. "Where lessee repairs, lien subject to conditions of lease and subor- dinate to rights of lessor: Cornelius v. Washington S. L. ( 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. 7 Oklahoma. But see Christy v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl.), 104 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl.), 104 Pac. Rep. 742. 8 Colorado. See Hall v Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 415, fol- lowing Shapleigh v. Hull, 21 Colo. 419, 41 Pac. Rep. 1108. 9 Colorado. See Hall v. Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 415 (lien against interest of both vendor and vendee). Kansas. Forfeiture of contract of sale: See Badger L. Co. v. Par- ker (Kan.), 116 Pac. Rep. 242. Oregon. Forfeited Interest: See Alaska P. Co. v. Bingham (Oreg.), 115 Pac. Rep. 159. 10 Arizona. Lien not upon mere option on mining property: Harper v. Independence D. <3o. (Ariz.), 108 Pac. Rep. 701, 704. Montana. See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. . Utah. Belknap v. Condon, 34 Utah 213, 97 Pac. Rep. Ill, 113, 114 (under 1372, Comp. Laws 1907). 467 468 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 18. n Additional matter to foot-note 19. 12 468. Same. Homestead bound. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 21. 14 Oklahoma. Crutcher v. Bloch, 19 Okl. 246, 91 Pac. Rep. 895; Jar- rell v. Block. 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167; Christy v. Union O. & G. Co. (Okl.). 114 Pac. Rep. 740; Shirley v. Union O. & Q. Co. (Okl.), 114 Pac. Rep. 742. Washington. Owen v. Casey, 48 Wash. 673, 94 Pac. Rep. 473 (clear- ing: land). But contra, where lessor makes repairs: See Housekeeper v. Livingstone. 48 Wash. 209, 93 Pac. Rep. 217, 219. See Cornelius v. Washington S. L.. 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727. 729. See S 464, this Supplement, ante, and notes. 11 Kansas. Lien on defaulted lease, valueless! Potter v. Conley (Kan.), 112 Pac. Rep. 608. Montana. Contract of lease held option which is strictly construed: Snider v. Yarmouth (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 411. Washington. Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. 12 Washington. See Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. is Oklahoma. No lien upon homestead of Chlckasaw Indian : See Keel v. Ingersoll (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 214. Utah. See Volker-Scowcroft L. Co. v. Vance (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 970, 973; s. c., 33 Utah 74, 88 Pac. Rep. 896. 14 See also S 460, ante, and !| 470 and 571, post. Treatise and this Supplement. Utah. Volker-Scowcroft L. Co. v. Vance (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 970, explaining s. c., 32 Utah 74, 88 Pac. Rep. 896. Washington. Olson v. Gooodsell, 56 Wash. 251, 105 Pac. Rep. 463. 167 ESTATES SUBJECT BY ESTOPPEL. SS 469-471 CHAPTER XXIV. LIMITATIONS ON LIENS (CONTINUED). ESTATES AND INTERESTS SUBJECT TO LIENS. II. BY ESTOPPEL. NOTICE OF NON-RESPONSIBILITY. 469. Estates or interests bound by estoppel. Scope of discussion. The doctrine upon which rest statutory provi- sions relating to the posting or filing of a notice of non- responsibility by the owner to protect his property from liens for labor material for the construction of a building thereon is that of estoppel. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 2. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 3. 3 470. Same. The general principles of estoppel, in pais. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 4 471. Same. Independently of statute. Additional matter to foot-note 6. 5 1 California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Brltton, 158 Cal. 328, 332, 111 Pac. Rep. 9; s. c. (Cal. App.), 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. Some of the language of this opinion relative to an "equitable lien" being created is unfortunate. 2 See Agency, 572 et seq., this Supplement, post. 3 See 470, this Supplement, post. 4 California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 332, 111 Pac. Rep. 9; s. c. (Cal. App.), 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. Principles of equitable estoppel i Kansas. See Dent v. Smith, 76 Kan. 381, 92 Pac. Rep. 307. Oklahoma. By silence: See Bragdon v. McShea (Okl.), 107 Pac. Rep. 916. Oregon. See State v. Portland G. E. Co., 52 Oreg. 502, 95 Pac. Rep. 722. Washington. See Caruthers v. Whitney, 56 Wash. 327, 105 Pac. Rep. 831. 5 Husband and wife as agents of each other: Federal. See Healey I. M. Co. v. Green (C. C., N. C.), 181 Fed. Rep. 890. Kansas. See Robert Garrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 181; Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. Kansas. Repairs by co-tenant: Leaving out of account necessary repairs and improvements essential to the preservation of the prop- 471-475 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. Additional matter to foot-note 7. 6 $ 472. Same. General rule as to when notice of non-re- sponsibility must be given. But a notice of non-responsi- bility obviously can not be given prohibiting what has al- ready been accomplished. 7 473. Same. Notice of non-responsibility. Statutory provision. 8 474. Same. Purpose of provision as to notice of non- responsibility. 8 475. Same. Notice or knowledge of improvement. Under the statute requiring the owner to give notice of non-responsibility, if the construction is already completed, it is obvious that knowledge subsequently acquired would be of no avail to the owner, and no such notice would be required. AVhere the lessee is the mere agent of the owner erty. one tenant In common can not by his own contract alone subject the Interest of his co-tenants to a mechanics' Hen: Robert Garrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 181 (case of husband as statutory agent of wife). See Mellor v. Valentine, 3 Colo. 260; Seel v. Nell, 37 Colo. 198, 86 Pac. Rep. 334; Conrad v. Starr, 50 Iowa 470, 481: Woodburn v. Gifford, 77 111. 285; Leslie v. Leonard, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 548. Change of account from name of agent to principal: See Chicago L. & C. Co. v. Washington, 80 Kan. 613, 103 Pac. Rep. 80, 81. Oklahoma. See Bloch v. Pearson, 19 Okl. 422, 91 Pac. Rep. 714. Utah. A fortiori, no lien when the owner has a mere expectation that the building will be constructed: Belknap v. Condon, 34 Utah 213, 97 Pac. Rep. Ill, 114. See Sheeny v. Fulton, 38 Neb. 691, 57 N. W. Rep. 395, 41 Am. St. Rep. 767. \\ :iliini:iiiii. Even where the leee direct* the claimant to proceed with the repairs ordered by the lessor, Interest of lessee not bound: Housekeeper v. Livingstone, 48 Wash. 209, 93 Pac. Rep. 217, 219. e Kamia*. See Robert Garrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 180, 181. 7 California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 111 Pac. Rep. 9; s. c. (Cal. App.), 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. s California. See 8 1192, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). Verification and recording of notice, among other things, now required. 9 California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 111 Pac. Rep. 9; s. c. (Cal. App.), 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. ESTATES SUBJECT BY ESTOPPEL. g 475 in the erection and construction of the building, such owner is not entitled to give the notice of non-responsibility pro- vided in the statute. 10 The general rule that knowledge of the agent is knowledge of the principal, within the scope of the agency, applies to knowledge of the construction of a building; thus when an agent having charge of property has notice during the progress of the work of construction that the vendee in possession is making repairs, this is notice to the owner. 11 The knowledge upon the owner's part which is sufficient to place him in default for failure to give the notice of non- responsibility required by the statute need not be absolute ; it is enough if it would put a prudent man upon inquiry. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 15. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 16. 14 Additional matter to foot-note 17. 15 10 California. Western L. & M. Co. v. Merchants' A. Co., 13 Cal. App. >4, 108 Pac. Rep. 891, 894 (hearing in Supreme Court denied). In this case it was also said that if the owner has knowledge of the in- tention to build, he must act upon that knowledge, and within three days post the notice; if he has no knowledge of the Intention, he must move with like promptness upon obtaining knowledge of the construc- tion. But see 484, Treatise and this Supplement, post. 11 California. Pacific L. Co. v. Wilson, 6 Cal. App. 561, 562, 92 Pac. Rep. 654. California. Whether necessary to give notice if knowledge is ob- tained after completion not determined: Pacific L. Co. v. Wilson, 6 Cal. App. 561, 562, 92 Pac. Rep. 654. If the owner received knowledge from any source as to the con- struction, constructive notice received by him by reason of knowledge of his agent of the construction can not arise; and the knowledge of the agent would be important only when the owner does not receive such notice as would put a prudent man upon inquiry: John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 332, 111 Pac. Rep. 9. 12 California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 332, 111 Pac. Rep. 9; s. c. (Cal. App.), 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350; and see Evans v. Judson, 120 Cal. 282, 284. is California. See Pacific L. Co. v. Wilson, 6 Cal. App. 561, 562, 92 Pac. Rep. 654. Colorado. See Hall v. Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 415. Nevada. Tonopah L. Co. v. Nevada A. Co., 30 Nev. 445, 97 Pac. Rep. 636, 639. 14 Utah. Compare Belknap v. Condon, 34 Utah 213, 97 Pac. Rep. Ill, 113, 114. is Washington. See Wetzler v. Nichols, 53 Wash. 285, 101 Pac. Rep. 867, 868. As to Implied notice: See Hawkes v. Hoffman, 56 Wash. 120, 105 Pac. Rep. 156, 158. 476-481 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 476. Same. Notice to corporation as owner. Additional matter to foot-note 18. 16 477. Same. Lessee in possession and making improve- ments. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 17 Additional matter to foot-note 21. 18 478. Same. Vendee being in possession. The interest of the vendor of real property may be bound for improve- ments made by a vendee in possession, of which the vendor has knowledge, if the latter does not give the notice of non- responsibility, required by the statute. 19 Additional matter to foot-note 22. 20 479. Same. When notice not required. The notice of non-responsibility is not required when the knowledge comes to the owner after the completion of the construction. 21 Additional matter to foot-note 25. 22 480. Same. When notice not required in case of mines and mining claims. 23 481. Same. Notice not required in case of grading and other work in incorporated cities. 23 10 New Mexico. Likewise, notice to general manager of corpora- tion, is notice to the corporation: Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec Q. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 713. IT Washington. See Wetzler v. Nichols, 53 Wash. 285, 101 Pac. Rep. 876, 878. is California. See 475, this Supplement, ante. 19 California. Pacific L. Co. v. Wilson, 6 Cal. App. 561, 92 Pac. Rep. 654. 20 Colorado. See Hall v. Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 415. Utah. Compare Belknap v. Condon, '34 Utah 213, 97 Pac. Rep. Ill, 114. 21 California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 111 Pac. Rep. 9; s. c., 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. 22 California. Unborn contingent remainder-man giving notice: See Los Angeles County v. Winans, 13 Cal. App. 234, 109 Pac. Rep. 640, 649, 109 Pac. Rep. 650. 23 California. But see 1192 Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313, et seq.). 171 ESTATES SUBJECT BY ESTOPPEL. 85482-484 482. Same. Notice not required in case of prior liens. Additional matter to foot-note 41. 24 Additional matter to foot-note 42. 25 483. Same. Effect of knowledge of claimant of lack; of authority of person making improvement. Additional matter to foot-note 43. 26 484. Same. Notice, when to be posted. The law does not say that upon the posting of the notice the owner will not be liable for any labor performed or material furnished thereafter, but that if he fails to post such notice within the statutory time after knowledge that the improvement was being made, it shall be held to have been constructed at his instance. There is no limitation in respect to the stage of the work at the time at which the notice must be posted. The statutory provision would be complied with by posting on the same day the improvements are begun, if this is within three days after knowledge was obtained, either in the con- struction or intended construction. And, if done within three days after knowledge received, the notice will be timely upon any day when the work on the improvement was in progress. 27 Holidays. Conceding that continuance of holidays de- clared by the governor consisting of part of the time work was being done postponed the owner's right to avail him- self of the notice of non-responsibility prescribed by the statute, the completion of the work during the holidays would not render such notice nugatory when the holidays had 24 New Mexico. Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 712, 713. 25 New Mexico. Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 712, 713. 26 Washington. Against the authority and consent of owner, a lien for grading can not be acquired; and the owner was held not estopped, although three-quarters of grading had been done: Erick- son v. Hochbrune, 47 Wash. 33, 91 Pac. Rep. 485 (statutory notice of non-responsibility not involved). 27 California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 332, 111 Pac. Rep. 9 (on hearing in Supreme Court, after decision in the Court of Appeals). See note 23, this chapter, ante. 484, 485 MECHANICS 1 LIENS SUPPLEMENT. ended, even if the work were commenced after a series of consecutive holidays were declared; and the owner must post such notice upon the first secular day after his dis- covery of the activities of the laborers who subsequently become lien claimants. 28 Additional matter to foot-note 44. 29 Additional matter to foot-note 45. 30 Additional matter to foot-note 46. 31 485. Same. Notice how posted. Conspicuous place. Additional matter to foot-note 48. 32 28 California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 330. Ill Pac. Rep. 9; a. c., 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. The question of the effect of the holidays held not to arise, owing to failure to post notice of non- responsibility on the first day succeeding the holidays. Id., p. 331. 29 California. See John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 111 Pac. Rep. 9; s. c., 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. See i 472, 475 and 479, this Supplement, ante. so California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 332, 111 Pac. Rep. 9 (on hearing in Supreme Court after decision in Court of App.). But see, contra s Western L. & M. Co. v. Merchants' A. Co., 13 Cal. App. 4, 108 Pac. Rep. 891, 894. si California. John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 332, 111 Pac. Rep. 9 (on rehearing in Supreme Court). "Day appointed by law" holiday: See John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 111 Pac. Rep. 9; s. c., 8 Cal. App. Dec. 350. See i 475, this Supplement, ante. 82 California. See 1192, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). \\ :isiiini;iiiii. Knowledge by the one pouting the notice that it was immediately torn down renders notice ineffectual: Shaw v. Spencer, 57 Wash. 587, 107 Pac. Rep. 383. 173 PRIORITIES OF LIENS. 486-492 CHAPTER XXV.. LIMITATIONS ON LIENS (CONTINUED). PRIORITIES. 486. Scope of chapter. 487. Priorities between mechanics' liens and other estates or interests, or other classes of liens. 488. Same. Statutory statement of rule. 1 489. Same. General analysis of provision. Additional matter to foot-note 12. 2 490. Same. Grants and conveyances. Additional matter to foot-note 15. 3 491. Same. Doctrine of relation. Additional matter to foot-note 18. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 20. 5 492. Same. Lien for materials. Where the owner con- tracts directly with the claimant through himself or com- 1 California. 1186 Code Civ. Proc. was not amended by Act of May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq'.). 2 California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 258, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 109 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. 3 California. Holt Mfg. Co. V. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 270, 97 Pac. Rep. 516. Oregon. But see Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg-. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg-. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 4 Federal. See Bankers T. Co. of New York v. T. A. Gillespie Co. (C. C. A.), 181 Fed. Rep. 448. Kansas. See Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan, 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833. Oregon. See Grants Pass B. & T. Co. v. Enterprise M. Co. (Oreg.), 113 Pac. Rep. 859. 5 Kansas. Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 835. 492-495 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. mon law agent, the priority of the lien is to be determined by the date when the claimant commenced to furnish the ma- terials, and includes all materials that he may thereafter furnish for the building. Additional matter to foot-note 25. 7 493. Same. Contractors and subcontractors. Void contracts. Homestead. Additional matter to foot-note 28. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 29. 9 494. Same. Parts of day. 495. Same. General rule. Additional matter to foot-note 31. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 32. n Additional matter to foot-note 33. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 34. 13 o California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266. 270, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. T California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 270, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. Kansas. See Fossett v. Rock Island Land & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 835. Oregon. Grants Pass B. & T. Co. v. Enterprise M. Co. (Oregr.), 113 Pac. Rep. 859. s California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 258, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. Statutory original contract abolished by Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 9 California. Compare Blood v. Munn, 155 Cal. 228, 100 Pac. Rep. 694. 10 Alaska. See Copper River L. Co. v. Clark, 3 Alaska 635. California. See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 766; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 258, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Compare Farnham v. Cali- fornia S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 269, 96 Pac. Rep. 788; and Blood v. Munn, 155 Cal. 228, 100 Pac. Rep. 694. - Oregon. Grants Pass B. & T. Co. v. Enterprise M. Co. (Oreg.), 113 Pac. Rep. 859. Washington. Compare Bigg's v. Hoffman (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 576. 11 California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 269, 270, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. 12 Washington. Compare Palmer v. Abrahams, 55 Wash. 352, 104 Pac. Rep. 648. 13 California. Holt Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 270, 97 Pac. Rep. 516. 175 PRIORITIES OF LIENS. 495-498a Additional matter to foot-note 35. 14 Additional matter to foot-note 36. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 37. 16 495a. Same. Deed of trust. Work, general design. The fact that claimant has been paid for work done prior to the execution and record of a deed of trust does not give priority to the deed of trust over the lien, for the work or material furnished after the record of the deed of trust, when the lien as whole relates back to the commencement of doing the work or furnishing the materials, and the con- struction or alteration is an entire undertaking, carried on in furtherance of one general design, although done in a somewhat fragmentary manner. 17 496. Same. Mortgage for purchase price. 497. Same. Mortgage for future advances. 498. Same. What constitutes further "advances." 498a. Same. Prior and subsequent mortgages. Where all the liens are prior to a mortgage, or all are subsequent thereto, the case is different from that where part are prior and part subsequent. In the latter instance there must be a judgment and sale in such terms as to preserve the respect- ive rights of the parties having liens upon the property; and the proceeds will be applied, first to the payment of the 14 California. Compare Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 258, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. See s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. is Arizona. Compare Bank of Arizona v. Thos. Haverly Co. (Ariz.), 115 Pac. Rep. 73, 75. California. See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 766; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; and compare s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 258, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. New Mexico. Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 712, 713. 16 New Mexico. Stearns-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 712, 713. IT California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 270. 498a-503 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 175 prior liens, then to the payment of the mortgage, and then to the inferior liens. 18 Debt not due. As a matter of necessity the debtor and mortgage creditor must under such circumstances be deemed to have acted subject to the contingency that such a disposi- tion might become necessary, and the maturity of the debt brought forward, a rebate of interest being allowed, when proper. 19 But when such necessity ceases to exist, for instance, when either the prior or subsequent liens are paid off, thus leaving only one class of liens surviving, the matur- ity of the mortgage debt can not be anticipated. 20 499. Same. Reformation and alteration of instruments. 500. Same. When lien claimants may attack prior en- cumbrances. 501. Same. Garnishment by creditor. 502. Same. Lien on two or more buildings. Statutory provision. 503. Same. When provision as to two or more build- ings applicable. Additional matter to foot-note 54. 21 is California. Burnett v. Glas. 154 Cal 249, 258, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 766; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. Illinois. See Croskey v. Northwestern Mfg. Co., 48 111. 481; North Presbyterian Church v. Jevne, 32 111. 214, 83 Am. Dec. 261; Grundels v. Hartwell, 90 111. 324. North Dakota. See Craig v. Herzman, 9 No. Dak. 140, 81 N. W. Rep. 288. Ohio. See Choteau v. Thompson, 2 Oh. St. 114. Texa. Kahler v. Carruthers, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 216, 223, 45 S. W. Rep. 160. 19 California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 258, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. See s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 766. 20 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 766; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 21 Kantian. Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan.), 114 Pac. Rep. 372. 177 PRIORITIES OF LIENS. ss 504-507 504. Priority inter sese. Statutory provision. Additional matter to foot-note 55. 22 505. Same. Nature of provision. 23 506. Same. Effect of constitution on statutory pro- vision. Additional matter to foot-note 64. 24 507. Same. Insufficient proceeds. Prorating. But under a void statutory original contract, that is, in case of a direct lien, no prorating or apportionment is necessary, so far as the amount that would otherwise be due under the original contract is concerned. 25 Additional matter to foot-note 67. 26 22 California. 1194 Code Civ. Proc., was repealed by Act of May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). Marshalling: assets: Oregon. See Washburn v. Inter-mountain M. Co. (Oreg.), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 386 (where mine and mill constitute one property to which lien attaches, doctrine of marshalling of assets can not be invoked; it applies only where there are two or more funds or properties). Wyoming. See Stowe v. Powers (Wyo.), 116 Pac. Rep. 576. 23 California. See 1194 Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 24 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 765; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. See Hartwell v. Ganahl L. Co., 8 Cal. App. 733, 737, 97 Pac. Rep. 901. See preceding note. 25 California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. 26 Marshalling assets: See 504, this Supplement, ante, notes. Bloom's Sup. 12 508-512 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. ]Jg CHAPTER XXVI. OWNER, EMPLOYER, OR PERSON CAUSING IMPROVEMENT TO BE MADE. 508. Owner and employer, or purchaser. Distinction. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 4. 2 509. Owner and reputed owner. 3 510. General rights of owner and employer. Scope of discussion. 511. Same. Rights against contractor. Statutory pro- vision. Additional matter to foot-note 9. 4 512. Same. General rule as to non-payment of in- stalments. 1 Various definition* of "owner": California. See Hughes Mfg. & L. Co. v. Wllcox (Cal. App.), 108 Pac. Rep. 871 (ownership of stock); Los Angeles Co. v. Winans (Cal. App.), 109 Pac. Rep. 641 (under foreclosure of street assessment). Kansas. See Steele v. Dye, 81 Kan. 286, 105 Pac. Rep. 700 (relating to taxation). See, also, Hathaway v. Davis, 32 Kan. 693, 5 Pac. Rep. 29. Oklahoma. See Jarrell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167. "Employer of Labor": See J. F. Parkinson Co. v. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581, 98 Pac. Rep. 1027. Public corporation an owner: See f 192, this Supplement, ante, and notes. 2 Idaho. See contra, Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 792, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. KniiMdN. See, contra, Badger L. Co., v. Malone, 8 Kan. App. 692, 54 Pac. Rep. 692. 3 See |508, this Supplement, ante, note. California. This provision remains under the amendment of 1911. Kansas. Under similar provision, owner may contest the extent of the lien of subcontractor, even though contractor is satisfied with amount of his claim: Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 Kan. 606, 103, Pac. Rep. 1003, 1004. Oklahoma. This Is upon the principle of subrogation: Albertl v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547, 548. 179 OWNER EMPLOYER. 88 513-515 513. Same. Right to cancel contract. Additional matter to foot-note II. 5 514. Same. Right of owner to retain fund. The owner has the right to retain the fund upon service of notice to withhold provided by the statute. 6 Additional matter to foot-note 12. 7 515. Same. Offsets and counterclaims. Generally. Additional matter to foot-note 19. 8 5 Washington. Mutual rescission: See Evans v. Oregon & W. R. Co., 58 Wash. 429, 108 Pac. Rep. 1095. e California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 462, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. 7 California. Right of owner to retain fund: See Klokke v. Ra- phael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 5, 96 Pac. Rep. 392. Kansas. Right to retain fund: See Fossett v. Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 836; Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1004. Oklahoma. See Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. 8 Colorado. See Gille'tt v. Young, 45 Colo. 562, 101 Pac. Rep. 766, 768. Idaho. For defective workmanship in an action to foreclose lien of original contractor: Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Idaho, 551, 99 Pac. Rep. 98, 101. Kansas. Owner setting oft damages against contractor: See Badger L. Co. v. Martin (Kan.), 112 Pac. Rep. 104, 105; McCullough v. S. J. Hayde C. Co., 82 Kan. 734, 109 Pac. Rep. 176. In Fossett v. "Rock Island L. & Mfg. Co., 76 Kan. 428, 92 Pac. Rep. 833, 838, 839 (Johnston, C. J., dissenting), it is said: "In Morehouse v. Moulding, 74 111. 322, where the statute at the time provided that in no case should the owner be compelled to pay a greater sum than the price stipulated in the original contract, it was held that damages for the failure to fulfill a contract should be deducted from the contract price, and the balance prorated among the subcontractors [p. 839]. And in Biggs v. Clapp, 74 111. 335, the same clause of the Illinois statute is construed in a case where the contractor abandoned the contract and the owner was obliged to complete it himself. It was held that, where the owner was obliged to pay more than the contract price to complete the building, the sub- contractors were not entitled to any lien. This court in Hotel Co. v. Hardware Co., 56 Kan. 448, 43 Pac. Rep. 769, has. laid down the same rule. It seems difficult to give a reason for allowing the owner credit for additional sums paid to carry out an abandoned contract, and thus reduce the fund upon which the subcontractor may rely, which would not apply with equal force to the allowance of damages occasioned by the fault of the contractor in other respects. The amount he contracted .to pay was a certain sum, conditioned upon full performance of the contract according to its terms. Wright v. Pohls, 83 Wis. 560, 53 N. W. Rep. 848. "Any damages resulting from the fault of either party, which couM R 515 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. be said to have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made, should properly figure in the amount the owner contracted to pay. If such damages resulted in his favor, the amount he contracted to pay would be so much less than the amount named. Stating it in different language, he contracted to pay a cer- tain sum conditioned upon the fulfillment of the contract, and, if any damages were caused .by the contractor, he agreed to pay as much less as the damages amounted to. MI,- owner may recoup diiniHicen mcnlnHt the contractor, arising out of the failure of the latter to perform faithfully the contract, and without regard to the absence in the contract of specific terms pro- viding for damages. He may show as against the contractor that the building was not completed, or not completed in time, or that defective materials were used. Why should he not be permitted to show these counterclaims when it is sought to recover against him by one who has no contractual relations with him, and who seeks to recover a debt from the contractor? The only answer to this is that the statute fixes the extent of his liability to the subcontractor at the amount which he agreed to pay the contractor, regardless of whether the contract is fulfilled or not. Giving an offset for the cost of completing the building is, however, when analyzed, practically an allowance of damages for failure to complete. The measure of the damages is the ascertained cost of completion, but the principle is the same as though the contract provided for a certain sum as liquidated damages for each day's delay, and numerous decisions authorize the allowance of damages liquidated in this manner by the terms of the contract, even in suits to enforce a subcontractor's Hen. "With respect to this question also it may be observed that the authorities are not so numerous as might be expected upon a question so likely to arise in the adjustment of building liens, nor are many of them clear and decisive. Some of the text writers say that dam- ages caused by the contractor may be offset against the lien of a subcontractor, but many of the cases referred to in the notes do not bear out the text. Thus Phillips on Mechanics' Liens, cites Mlllsap v. Ball, 30 Neb. 728, 46 N. W. Rep. 1125, relied upon by plaintiff In error. The case, however. Is not an authority. There is in the opinion a statement that, damages caused by a contractor may be offset against the lien of a subcontractor, but it appears on examination to be mere dictum. Some of the other cases cited by plaintiff in error were suits by the original contractor, and others are based upon statutes which expressly declare that the Hen of the subcontractor is limited to 'what may be due the contractor,' leaving little room for doubt as to the proper construction. in Home n. James Black M. & C. Co. v. National S. Co. (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 517, 519; Leiendecker v. Aetna I. Co., 52 Wash. 609, 101 Pac. Rep. 219. Contrary rule, where sureties are not injured: Monro v. National S. Co., 47 Wash. 488, 92 Pac. Rep. 280. See 618, this Supplement, ante, note. A compensated onrety will not be relieved of his obligation, unless it be shown that he has been in fact prejudiced by a breach of the contract, that is not merely technical but substantial, working a pecuniary disadvantage to the surety, or depriving him of some pro- tection or privilege reserved in the bond: James Black M. & C. Co. v. National S. Co. (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 517, 518, citing cases to Washington note in Treatise, and distinguishing Leghorn v. Nydell, 39 Wash. 17, 80 Pac. Rep. 833, and Monro v. National S. Co., 47 Wash. 488, 92 Pac. Rep. 280. 44 California. Russell v. Ross, 157 Cal. 174, 180, 106 Pac. Rep. 583 (Construction of a vessel). 45 See f 619 of Treatise, ante. 46 California. See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 860; 221 THIRD PERSONS SURETIES. 24, 625 624. Same. Final instalment. Additional matter to foot-note 45. 47 625. Liability of sureties. 48 Damages. Additional matter to foot-note 46. 49 t Additional matter to foot-note 49. 50 s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Washington. But see Young Men's Christian Assoc. v. Gibson, 58 Wash. 337, 108 Pac. Rep. 766, 769. If the building contract provides for a round sum and does not stipulate for the time when payment shall be made, the guarantor of the contract is not discharged by the owner making payments to the contractor as the work progresses and before it is completed: Leien- decker v. Aetna I. Co., 52 Wash. 609, 101 Pac. Rep. 219, 220. 47 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 860; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Washington. Notice to surety of final settlement: See Exposition A. Co. v. Empire State S. Co., 49 Wash. 637, 96 Pac. Rep. 158, 160, 97 Pac. Rep. 464. 48 Washington. A secret understanding not amounting to a con- tract between the owner and contractor whereby the latter was to receive security not exonerating surety: See Martin v. Empire State S. Co., 53 Wash. 290, 101 Pac. Rep. 876. 49 California. Attorney's fees recoverable: Klokke V. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 5, 96 Pac. Rep. 392, distinguishing Burnett v. Glas (Cal. App.), 97 Pac. Rep. 423 on the ground that the fund was not exhausted in that case and that the contract was void and that the owner wrongfully refused to pay a large amount in his hands in excess of all claims of lien against his property. Washington. No recovery for delay caused by owner: See Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co., 58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024, 1027. Damages for delay; surety not exonerated: See Keenan v. Empire State S. Co. (Wash.), 113 Pac. Rep. 636, 638. Only attorneys' fees in defending lien cases actually paid recover- able as damages: Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co., 58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024, 1027. Showing amount of claims as damages, whether claims brought into action or not: See Exposition A. Co. v. Empire State S. Co., 49 Wash. 637, 96 Pac. Rep. 158, 159, 97 Pac. Rep. 464. As to recovery of costs: See Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co., 58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024, 1027. Failure of owner to make payment. A surety company is not exon- erated because the owner fails to make payment at the time payment is due according to contract, where there is nothing to show that the certificate required was ever presented for payment, or that the want of payment was a cause in any degree of the failure of the contractor to finish the building according to the agreement: Martin v. Empire State S. Co., 53 Wash. 290, 101 Pac. Rep. 876. 50 California. Right and duty of owner to make loss as light as possible, upon abandonment, and upon refusal of surety to complete contract, owner may do so: Russell v. Ross, 157 Cal. 174, 106 Pac. Rep. 583. Colorado. See Rice v. Rhone (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 585, 587. 625 626 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 222 Additional matter to foot-note 50. 51 626. Bond of contractor on public work. Additional matter to foot-note 51. 52 si Idaho. Admissions that there are no charges for extras binding on surety as part of res gestae: See Sanders v. Keller (Idaho), 111 Pac. Rep. 350, 362. Washington. Surety not liable to owner for work done by claimant which is not a substantial performance of the contract: See Exposition A. Co. v. Empire State S. Co., 49 Wash. 637, 96 Pac. Rep. 158, 160, 97 Pac. Rep. 464. No recovery against mirety for extra work not covered by contract or bond: See Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co., 58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024, 1027. *- llond of contractor on public work! California. See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 508, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; a. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218; City S. I. Co. v. Kroh, 158 Cal. 318, 110 Pac. Rep. 933, 938. Colorado. Duty of public authorities to take bond: State Board of Agriculture v. Dimick, 46 Colo. 609, 105 Pac. Rep. 1114. Bond muMt be for benefit of clalmantx: See State Board of Agricul- ture v. Dimick, 46 Colo. 609, 105 Pac. Rep. 1114. See S 615 this Supplement, ante, note. Idaho. Compare Rathbun v. State, 15 Idaho 273, 97 Pac. Rep. 335, 336. KimxiiM. Compare National S. Co. v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co., 76 Kan. 914, 92 Pac. Rep. 1111. Washington. Notice to owner t See Strandell v. Moran, 49 Wash. 533, 95 Pac. Rep. 1106 (over statement of amount). Notice to Huretyt Cascade L. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 503, 106 Pac. Rep. 158; Minneapolis S. & M. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 699, 106 Pac. Rep. 160. Delivery of duplicate statement under mechanics'-lien law not ap- plicable under Laws 1909, c. 45, 81: Gate City L. Co. v. City of Monte- sano (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 799. Second notice to cure defects In first notice, under 5925 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. (6121, Pierce's Code): See Cascade L. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 503, 106 Pac. Rep. 158; Minneapolis S. & M. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 699, 106 Pac. Rep. 160. Am to proceedlnKs under this statute, see, generally, Fransioli v. Thompson, 55 Wash. 259, 104 Pac. Rep. 278, 280. 223 WAIVER, FORFEITURE AND RELEASE. 8S 627-629 CHAPTER XXXI. WAIVER, FORFEITURE, AND RELEASE OF LIEN. 627. Waiver of lien. General principle. An agreement to waive the lien of one who performs labor upon or fur- nishes materials for a building must be certain and must be clearly and unequivocally established; 1 and if such agree- ment is subject to conditions subsequent which are not per- formed by the other party the claimant does not waive his lien. 2 By merely agreeing that he will save the owner harm- less from liens, the contractor does not waive his own rights to a lien. Such a clause will be construed to mean liens except his own. 3 Additional matter to foot-note I. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 3. 5 628. Same. Statutory provision. 6 629. Same. Knowledge of lack of authority of em- ployer. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 7 i Illinois. Concord A. H. Co. v. O'Brien, 128 111. APR. 437. Pennsylvania. Nice v. Walker, 153 Pa. 123, 25 Atl. Rep. 1065, 34 Am. St. Rep. 688. Washington. Pac. L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869, 870; Holm v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 799, 801. -\\sishiiiKion. Pac. L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869, 870. See Release, 634, this Supplement, post. r:\Vsi.shiiiKton. Rhone v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 799, 801. Wisconsin. Davis v. Lacrosse H. Assoc., 121 Wis. 579, 99 N. W. Rep. 351. 4 Colorado. As to waiver of lien by giving credit solely to the per- son: Compare Rice v. Rhone (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 585. 5 Illinois. Concord A. H. Co. v. O'Brien, 128 111. App. 437. Washington. Holm v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 799, 801. 6 See 510 et seq., ante. California. 1201 Code Civ. Proc. was not amended in 1911. 7 Washington. As to estoppel, see Seattle L. Co. v. Cutler (Wash.), 116 Pac. Rep. 1. 630-633 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 224 630. Same. Taking additional security. There was nothing in the Mechanics' Lien Law of California before the amendment of 1911 which would release the owner of the building from the operation of the lien to which a claimant was entitled by reason of the fact that a third person had assumed the relation of guarantor of the debt. The creditor could not be presumed to have waived his lien by having taken this additional security. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 6. 9 Additional matter to foot-note 7. 10 631. Same. Entry of judgment. Additional matter to foot-note 12. n 632. Forfeiture by false or excessive claim or notice. Additional matter to foot-note 15. 12 633. Same. Illustrations. Additional matter to foot-note 23. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 24. 14 8 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 865, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 92 Pac. Rep. 423. o Wanhlngton. See Pac. L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869, 870; Fairbanks-Morse & Co. v. Union B. T. Co.. 55 Wash. 538, 104 Pac. Rep. 815, 817. 10 Washington. See Bowles v. Fraser (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 812. 11 Oklahoma. Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. Oregon. Following Marean v. Stanley, 5 Colo. App. 335; Benbow v. The James Johns (Oregr.), 108 Pac. Rep. 634, 638. Utah. State ex rel. Dorset v. Morse (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 969. 12 California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 651; Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 414. Forfeiture by change In lawi See D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Waters, 10 Cal. App. 89. 91, 101 Pac. Rep. 38. See 35-38 Treatise and this Supplement. 13 California. See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 651, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 14 Alaska. Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 852, 855. Colorado. Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. KIIIIHII*. Home L. & S. Co. v. School Dist. (Kan.), 115 Pac. Rep. 590. Washington. Strandell v. Moran, 49 Wash. 533, 95 Pac. Rep. 1106; Bellingrham v. Linck, 53 Wash. 208, 101 Pac. Rep. 843, 844. 225 WAIVER, FORFEITURE AND RELEASE, gg 634-637 634. Release of lien. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 25. 16 635. Same. Composition agreement. Definition. Offer and tender of a less amount by a debtor to the creditor which clearly discloses to the creditor that it is in full satis- faction of a disputed claim, and retention of the amount by the Creditor, constitute an accord and satisfaction. 17 636. Same. Agreement to assign claims to owner. 18 637. Same. Effect of composition agreement. 19 IB California. See release of lien by filing contract and bond under amendment of 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 16 Colorado. Agreement to release must be clearly established: Har- vey v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 44 Colo. 258, 99 Pac. Rep. 31, 35. New Mexico. Insurance company not subrogated to the rights of lienholder upon payment of claim under policy of insurance: Burton- Lingo Co. v. Patton (N. M.), 107 Pac. Rep. 679, 682, 683. Washington. As to release of only personal liability of owner: See Seattle L. Co. v. Cutler (Wash.), 116 Pac. Rep. 1. IT California. Weller v. Stevens, 12 Cal. App. 779, 108 Pac. Rep. 532. Colorado. Harvey v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 44 Colo. 258, 99 Pac. Rep. 31, 35. is California. See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 509, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. 19 Accord and satisfaction: Idaho. See Heath v. Potlach L. Co., 18 Idaho 42, 108 Pac. Rep. 343. Kansas. See Mathemy v. City of Eldorado, 82 Kan. 720, 109 Pac. Rep. 166. Washington. See Seattle R. & S. Ry. Co. v. Seattle-Tacoma P. Co. (Wash.), 116 Pac. Rep. 289. Wyoming. See City of Rawlins v. Jungquist, 16 Wyo. 403, 96 Pac. Rep. 96, 144. Bloom's Sup. 15 PART II. PLEADING AND PROCEDURE. CHAPTER XXXII. REMEDIES. 638. Cumulative remedies. Personal action. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 3. 2 639. Same. Election, when several suits commenced. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 3 640. Same. Nature of action to foreclose lien. Additional matter to foot-note 6. 4 1 Idaho. Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. P. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 828; s. c., 96 Pac. Rep. 573. Kansas. Whether actions can be prosecuted at the same time upon bond given under Mechanics' Lien Law and to foreclose lien: See Deatherage v. Mills (Kan.), 116 Pac. Rep. 505. Oklahoma. Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. Utah. State ex rel. Dorset v. Morse (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 969. 2 Colorado. But see Hall v. Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 415. Oklahoma. Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. Utah. State ex rel. Dorset v. Morse (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 969. Washington. Rasmussen v. Liming, 50 Wash. 184, 96 Pac. Rep. 1044. 3 California. Action for breach of concurrent contracts for delivery of material: See Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern R. Co., 158 Cal. 264, 110 Pac. Rep. 951. Utah. State ex rel. Dorset v. Morse (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 969. Washington. Where claimant sties upon both express and implied agreements he can not be required to separate his causes of action or to elect upon which cause he will rely: Holm v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 799. Alaska. Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752, 756. 4 California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. Idaho. Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho (227) 640-642 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 228 Additional matter to foot-note 8. 5 641. Same. Actions by original contractor. Additional matter to foot-note 10. Additional matter to foot-note 12." Additional matter to foot-note 13. 8 642. Same. Actions by subclaimants. Additional matter to foot-note 21. 9 Additional matter to foot-note 22. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 25. n Additional matter to foot-note 26. 12 722. 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 828, 96 Pac. Rep. 573; Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 799, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Oklahoma. Either at law or In equity i See Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 820. Utah. State ex rel. Dorset v. Morse (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 969. WiiMhlnitlon. Pacific L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869, 870. B California. Los Angeles County v. Wlnans, 13 Cal. App. 234, 109 Pac. Rep. 640. 650. As to proceeding In rent under iitreet Improvement act of 1885: See Los Angeles County v. Winans, 109 Pac. Rep. 640, 648; s. c., 13 Cal. App. 234, 109 Pac. Rep. 650. Kansas. See New v. Smith, 68 Kan. 807, 74 Pac. Rep. 610. Minnesota. See Sanders v. Caisson, 13 Minn. 379, 45 N. W. Rep. 15. Montana. Compare Gassert v. Strong, 38 Mont. 18, 98 Pac. Rep. 497, 500. Oklahoma. Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. e California. See Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 695, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. Colorado. See Lombard v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. Rep. 695. Oregon. See Adams v. Mackenzie (Oreg.), 114 Pac. Rep. 460. Washington. Action against personal representative of owners See MacDonald v. O'Shea, 58 Wash. 169, 108 Pac. Rep. 436, 438. 7 Washington. Compare Evans v. Oregon & W. R. Co., 58 Wash. 429, 108 Pac. Rep. 1095. 8 California. Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 695, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. e Oklahoma. See Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. 10 Washington. Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 102 Pac. Rep. 766 r 101 Pac. Rep. 869. 11 Oklahoma. See Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. 12 California. Action to reach funds in the hands of municipality for sewer work. See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 508, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. 229 REMEDIES. 642-648 Additional matter to foot-note 29. 13 643. Same. Actions by owner's laborers and material- men. 644. Same. Actions by owner. Additional matter to foot-note 32. 14 Additional matter to foot-note 36. 15 645. Provisional remedies. Statutory provision. 646. Same. Attachment. Additional matter to foot-note 41. 16 647. Same. Materials exempt from attachment. Additional matter to foot-note 44. 17 648. Same. Injunction. Additional matter to foot-note 45. 18 is California. See Hubbard v. Lee, 10 Cal. App. 477, 478, 102 Pac. Rep. 528; s. c., 6 Cal. App. 602, 92 Pac. Rep. 744. 14 California. Damages for failure to deliver material: Fairchild- Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern R. Co., 158 Cal. 264, 110 Pac. Rep. 951. Washington. Action upon decease of contractor against personal representative: See MacDonald v. O'Shea, 58 Wash. 169, 108 Pac. Rep. 436, 438. is Washington. Action on bond: See Monro v. National S. Co., 47 Wash. 488, 92 Pac. Rep. 280. See 605 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 16 California. ' Attachment now allowed claimant under 1197 Code Civ. Proc., as amended Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. Montana. Attachment: See Eisenhauer v. Quinn, 36 Mont. 368, 93 Pac. Rep. 38. 17 Washington. Attachments for fraud "in contracting debt." Where materials not used in performance of contract are charged up against the building at the instance of the contractor attempting to dispose of his property: See Gordon v. Gillespie, 58 Wash. 62, 109 Pac. Rep. 109, 111. is \ <-\\ Mexico. Enjoining sale of property upon which lien has been foreclosed: See Robertson v. Mine & S. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 1037. 649, 650 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 230 CHAPTER XXXIII. TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER OF COMMENCING ACTIONS TO FORECLOSE LIEN. 649. Time of commencing actions to foreclose. ' Additional matter to foot-note 1.- Additional matter to foot-note 2. 3 650. Same. Action to foreclose lien upon the fund. 4 1 See { 605, this Supplement, ante. 2 California. Action for dantagen for abandonment against con- tractor and his sureties Is not prematurely brought, because com- menced before the building is completed; as the cause of action ac- crues as soon as the contractor abandons the contract: Baclgalupl v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App.), 112 Pac. Rep. 892, 894. See Taylor v. North P. C. R. R. Co., 66 Cal. 317. Ohio. See Cincinnati & S. Ry. Co. v. Village of Carthage, 36 Ohio St. 631. California. Limitation of action In u!t on garnishment by way of execution at the instance of original contractor's subclaimants who have failed to establish their liens, but who have recovered personal judgment against original contractor: See Nordstrom v. Corona City W. Co., 155 Cal. 206. 214, 100 Pac. Rep. 242. K n 11 NUM. See Sutherlin v. Chesney (Kan.), 116 Pac. Rep. 254. Statute of limitation* upon an obligation growing; immediately out of written contract regarding drilling of wells: See Bailey v. Fredonia G. Co., 82 Kan. 746, 109 Pac. Rep. 411, 413. Washington. Action on contractor's bond! See Martin v. Empire State S. Co., 53 Wash. 290, 101 Pac. Rep. 876; Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co.. 58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024, 1026. 3 California. Where the claim of lien was filed December 28, 1906, and the complaint was tiled March 27, 1907, it was filed within the ninety days described by | 1190, Code Civ. Proc.: Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. Washington. Rees v. Wilson, 50 Wash. 339, 97 Pac. Rep. 245. Failure to make real owner party until after time limited by statute owing to fraud of owner: See Rees v. Wilson, 50 Wash. 339, 97 Pac. Rep. 245. Washington. Special limitation of time to commence action t See Jensen v. Sheard, 49 Wash. 593, 96 Pac. Rep. 2; Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co., 58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024. Limitation on second claim flled and action on second claim within statutory period, action not barred: Lindley v. McGlauflln, 58 Wash. 636, 109 Pac. Rep. 118, 120; s. c., 57 Wash. 581, 107 Pac. Rep. 355. 4 See SI 547 et seq.. Supplement, ante. 231 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIONS. 88 651-655 651. Place of commencing action to foreclosure. Gen- erally. A mechanic's lien is enforceable only in the state by the statute of which it is created ; if the rule were otherwise, it would have the effect of attributing to the decree the force and effect of a judgment in rem by a court having no jurisdiction over the res. 5 Additional matter to foot-note II. 6 652. Same. Statutory provision. 653. Same. Jurisdiction of superior court. Additional matter to foot-note 17. 7 654. Same. Amount less than jurisdictional limit. But where the complaint fails to state a cause of action for the foreclosure of the lien, the superior court has no jurisdic- tion if it does show a cause of action for a money judgment for less than three hundred dollars. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 18. 9 655. Same. Foreclosure of lien in Federal Courts. The Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction to enter- tain a bill in equity to foreclose a mechanic's lien, although 5 Burton-Lingo Co. v. Patton (N. M.), 107 Pac. Rep. 679, 680, 681; Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U. S. 105, 11 Sup. Ct. 960, bk. 35, L. ed. 101; Fall v. Eastin, 215 U. S. 1, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 3, 54 L. ed. ; Davis v. Head- ley, 22 N. J. Eq. 115; Cooley v. Scarlet, 38 111. 316, 87 Am. Dec. 298; Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N. Y. 227, 78 Am. Dec. 192. 6 Oklahoma. Change of venue: See Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. 7 California. See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 508, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. Oklahoma. Jurisdiction of District Court: See Dallas v. Pitch - ford (Okl.), 115 Pac. Rep. 1110. 8 California. Davis v. Treacy, 8 Cal. App. 395, 97 Pac. Rep. 78. 9 California. See Paterson v. McDonald (Cal. App.), 110 Pac. Rep. 465, 466. Utah. See Volker-Scowcroft L. Co. v. Vance (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 970, 972; s. c., 33 Utah 74, 88 Pac. Rep. 896. Washington. When lien on steam shovel fails, if pleadings and evidence justify it, court has jurisdiction to render money judgment: Pacific I. & S. Works, 55 Wash. 149, 104 Pac. Rep. 151. As to ap- pellate jurisdiction: See Hall v. Cowen, 51 Wash. 295, 98 Pac. Rep. 670. 655-657 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 232 the state statute may give an action at law, especially where there are conflicting liens upon the property, which a court of equity alone can adjust. 10 But it can not foreclose such lien on its law side. 11 jl 656. Manner of commencing actions to foreclose. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 12 657. Same. Summons. Additional matter to foot-note 21. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 22. 14 loHealey I. M. Co. v. Green (C. C., N. C.). 181 Fed. Rep. 890, 893: Sheffield F. Co. v. Wltherow, 149 U. S. 574, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 936, 37 L. ed. 853. 11 Armstrong Cork Co. v. Merchants R. Co. (C. C., Mo.), 171 Fed. Rep. 778. 779; s. c. (C. C. A.), 184 Fed. Rep. 199. An to jurlndlctlon of Federal Court* to enforce mechanic*' lien*: See Gilchrist v. Helena H. S. & S. R. Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 708. A* to jurliidlctlon of *tate court* to foreclose Hen on interest of lessee of school lands, fee being in United States, no attempt being made to foreclose lien on interest of the Federal Government: Jar- tell v. Block, 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167, 169. 12 Insufficient commencement of action on law Hide of Circuit Court: Armstrong Cork Co. v. Merchants R. Co. (C. C., Mo.), 184 Fed. Rep. 199. is California. Service of Mtimmon* by publication! See People v. Patrick Mulcahey (Cal. Dec. 27, 1910). Colorado. Summon* need not be iHnned on claimant*' cro*-eom- plalnt to foreclose lien nor need it be served upon principal con- tractor: Barnes v. Colorado Springs and C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. Service of nummon* upon copartnerxhlp and binding interests of copartnership: See Barnes v. Colorado Springs and C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 572. Idaho. Constructive *ervlce not authorising; per*onal or money Judgment: Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 828. 96 Pac. Rep. 573. New Mexico. Without notice or opportunity to be heard, or serv- ice of process, judgment of foreclosure absolutely void against owner: Robertson v. Mine & S. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 1037. Oklahoma. Subcontractor may recover amount due his subclaim- ant not served with process, but no judgment in favor of such sub- claimants can be rendered if the court has not acquired jurisdiction of such subclaimant, although he may be party to action: Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. Washington. Waiver of defect* In *ummon* or service: See Bel- lingham v. Linck, 53 Wash. 208, 101 Pac. Rep. 843. 14 California. Sufficient affidavit of *ervlce of ummon* by publica- tion! See Roberts v. Jacob, 154 Cal. 307, 97 Pac. Rep. 671. Colorado. Sufficient return of service of Mummon* on partner: See Barnes v. Colorado Springs and C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570. 572. 233 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIONS. 658. Same. Lis pendens. Additional matter to foot-note 23. 13 15 l.i.x pendens: Arizona. See Brandt v. Scrlbner (Ariz.), 108 Pac. Rep. 492. Colorado. See Buckhorn P. Co. v. Consolidated P. Co. (Colo.), 108 Pac. Rep. 27. Washington. Compare Biggs v. Hoffman (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 576. 659-663 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 234 CHAPTER XXXIV. PARTIES. $ 659. Parties plaintiff. Statutory provision. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 |j 660. Same. Object of provision. 2 661. Same. Raising objection. $ 662. Parties defendant. Generally. 3 Additional matter to foot-note II. 4 663. Same. Owner. The owner must be made a party to the action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, if his property is to be made chargeable wtth the claim for which the lien is given. 5 Additional matter to foot-note 14.' : Additional matter to foot-note 15." 1 Arizona. Suit by iiHMignee of claim: Harper v. Independence D. Co. (Ariz.), 108 Pac. Rep. 701, 703. I\:IMS:IS. Prenldent and not corporation real party In Interest. See Shores v. United S. Co. (Kan.), 114 Pac. Rep. 1062. 2 See 460 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 3 See notes, post, this chapter. 4 Colorado. Bringing In other partner* defendant: See Barnes v. Colorado Springs and C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570. 572. Wanhlngton. Contractor and hln nurety an partlen defendant. See City of Spokane v. Costello, 57 Wash. 183, 106 Pac. Rep. 764, 767. All penonn connected with contract conceived to be liable may be joined as defendants: Fransloll v. Thompson, 65 Wash. 259, 104 Pac. Rep. 278, 280. "> California. Los Angeles County v. Winans, 13 Cal. App. 234, 109 Pac. Rep. 640, 650. e California. See Holt Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 270, 97 Pac. Rep. 516 (threshing machine). Idaho. Right of wife to defend: See Larson v. Carter, 14 Idaho 511, 94 Pac. Rep. 825, 827. \Yanlilngton. Owner deceiving claimant made party after timf limited for commencing action: See Rees v. Wilson, 50 Wash. 339, 97 Pac. Rep. 245. 7 \Vanhlngton. Hunband and wife as parties defendant: See Ras- mussen v. Liming, 50 Wash. 184, 96 Pac. Rep. 1044. 235 PARTIES. 664-669 664. Same. Employers. Copartnerships. Additional matter to foot-note 17. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 18. 9 665. Same. Contractor. It is immaterial to show, so far as the rights of lien claimants are concerned, that the contractor named in and who executed the original contract was a mere figure-head, and that other persons, even those seeking to assert liens, or who were sureties on the contrac- tor's bond, are the real parties in interest. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 19. 11 Additional matter to foot-note 20. 12 666. Same. Subcontractor. 13 667. Same. Lien claimants. Additional matter to foot-note 23. 14 668. Same. Holders of prior interests and liens. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 25. 16 Additional matter to foot-note 30. 17 669. Same. Interests pendente lite. 18 s Oregon. Mechanic's lien filed by partnership, copartner not neces- sary party: See Ban v. Columbia S. R. Co., 117 Fed. Rep. 21, 54 C. C. A. 407, reversing s. c., 109 Fed. Rep. 499. o Washington. Administrator of contractor and surety as parties: See City of Spokane v. Costello, 57 Wash. 183, 106 Pac. Rep. 764, 767. 10 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 861; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 11 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 521, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Washington. Contractor and wife as parties defendant: See Ras- mussen v. Liming, 50 Wash. 184, 96 Pac. Rep. 1044. Contractor's administrator as party: See City of Spokane v. Cos- tello, 57 Wash. 183, 106 Pac. Rep. 764, 767. 12 Oklahoma. Contractor necessary party: Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 546. is See 66-76, generally, Treatise and Supplement, as to subcon- tractors. 14 Oklahoma. See Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. 15 See '.'Priorities," 486 et seq., this Supplement. 16 Washington. Compare Biggs v. Hoffman (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 576. 17 California. Holt Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 270, 97 Pac. Rep. 516. is See Lis Pendens, 658, this Supplement, ante. 670-672 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 236 CHAPTER XXXV. COMPLAINT. 670. Complaint. In general. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 671. Stating cause of action. 2 The better practice is to allege the facts as they occurred, and leave the Court to draw the conclusion that the property is subject to the lien. 3 Additional matter to foot-note 5. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 6. 5 672. General rules of pleading contract. Additional matter to foot-note 9. 6 Additional matter to foot-note II. 7 Additional matter to foot-note 12. 8 1 California. Action by owner agalnat contractor'* uretyi See Klokke v. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 4, 96 Pac. Rep. 392. Colorado. Alleging cause of action on contractor'* bondi See State Board of Agriculture v. Dlmlck, 46 Colo. 609, 105 Pac. Rep. 1114. Foreign corporation; alleging performance of prereqnlnlte* for do- Ing buMlneMi Idaho. See Valley L. Co. v. Eriessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 771. Washington. North Star T. Co. v. Alaska-Yukon Pac. Exposition (Wash.). 115 Pac. Rep. 855. 2 Oregon. Alleging "valid lien*" in complaint of mortgagee who paid same under terms of mortgage, a conclusion of law: Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 460. s California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 4 Oregon. Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079: s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1031; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. s California. Seebach v. KUhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 490, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. Colorado. Lombard v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. Rep. 965, 966. e California. Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. See Naylor v. Adams (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 335. 7 California. Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. Pleading modification of contracts See Reed v. Marshall, 12 Cal. App. 697, 700, 108 Pac. Rep. 719. 8 California. "The general rale of law is that while a special con- 237 COMPLAINT. 673. Same. Common counts. Additional matter to foot-note 16. 9 Additional matter to foot-note 17. 10 . Additional matter to Paragraph I. 11 Additional matter to Paragraph 2. 12 tract remains open that is, unperformed the party whose part of it has not been done cannot sue in indebitatus assumpsit to recover compensation for what he has done until the whole is completed." "But the exceptions from that rule are in cases in which something has been done under a special contract, but not in strict accordance with that contract. In such a case the party cannot recover the remuneration stipulated for in the contract because he has not done that which was to be the consideration of it." "Still, If the other party has derived any benefit from the labor done, it would be unjust to allow him to retain that without paying anything. The law, therefore, implies a promise on his part to pay such remuneration as the benefit conferred is really worth; and, to recover it, an action in indebitatus assumpsit is maintainable. In such an action, the defendant may be allowed by way of counter- claim or setoff to recoup himself in damages for injuries or detri- ment sustained by him because of plaintiff's failure to comply with the obligations imposed upon him by the contract": Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 43, quoting from the opinion of Justice Wayne, in Dermott v. Jones, 23 How. (U. S.), 220. See Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. Utah. See Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004. 9 California. Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237; Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 695, 109 Pac. Rep. 29; Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los An- geles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 41, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. See, gen- erally, Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Colorado. Lombard v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. Rep. 965, 966. See Harvey v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 44 Colo. 258, 99 Pac. Rep. 31, 33. Oregon. Promise to pay need not be alleged In indebitatus as- sumpsit: Pioneer H. Co. v. Farrin (Oreg.), 107 Pac. Rep. 456. Utah. See Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004. Account stated: California. See Stimson M. Co. v. Hughes Mfg. Co., 8 Cal. App. 559, 97 Pac. Rep. 322. Idaho. See Naylor v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 578; s. c., 95 Pac. Rep. 827. 10 Colorado. Lombard v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. Rep. 695. Utah. See Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004, 1007. 11 Colorado. Lombard v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. Rep. 695. 12 California. Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 490, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. Colorado. Lombard v. Overland D. & R. Co., 41 Colo. 253, 92 Pac. Rep. 695. 674-676 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 238 674. Same. Technical defects cured by acts of the par- ties. Additional matter to foot-note 18. 1:>> 674a. Same. Estoppel. Waiver. If a litigant relies upon matter of waiver or estoppel to sustain his cause of action or defense, he must specially plead such matter. 14 But where the pleader is without knowledge that his demand must ultimately rest upon estoppel, he is not obliged to plead it. 15 675. Same. Express contract. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 1G Additional matter to foot-note 21. 17 676. Same. Conditions precedent. As to conditions precedent in a contract, under the statute, it may be stated generally that the party duly performed all the conditions on his part. 18 Additional matter to foot-note 22. in is California. See Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co.. 12 Cal. App. 37, 41. 106 Pac. Rep. 413. Oregon. See Mclnnls v. Buchanan, 53 Oreg. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 929. 930. 14 California. Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 489, 99 Pac. Rep. 723; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 641, 58 Pac. Rep. 298, 60 Pac. Rep. 974, 66 Pac. Rep. 982. Colorado. Glllett v. Young, 45 Colo. 562, 101 Pac. Rep. 766, 768. \\iiMliitiKtoii. The facts constituting equitable estoppel should be pleaded, not the conclusion: City of Spokane v. Costello, 57 Wash. 183, 106 Pac. Rep. 764. is California. Hubbard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 609, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 528. 16 California. See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. Compare Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; a. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. IT California. See Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. is California. Needham v. Chandler, 8 Cal. App. 124, 127, 96 Pac. Rep. 325. See City S. & I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419. 432, 101 Pac. Rep. 308. IB California. Coplew v. Durand, 153 Cal. 278, 279, 95 Pac. Rep. 38. Arbitration an condition precedents Burke v. Dittus, 8 Cal. App. 175. 178. 96 Pac. Rep. 330. 239 COMPLAINT. 676-682 Additional matter to foot-note 23. 20 677. Same. Completion of building. 21 678. Same. Certificate of architect. Additional matter to foot-note 26. 22 679. Same. Prevention of performance. Additional matter to foot-note 29. 23 680. Same. Debt due. The averment that a specific sum "is now due and owing," although a statement of a legal conclusion, is sufficient to support a judgment by the court. 24 It is not necessary to allege that there is anything due from the owner to the contractor, where the lien is di- rect. 25 681. Same. Non-payment of indebtedness to plaintiff. Additional matter to foot-note 33. 26 682. Same. Premature payment to contractor by owner. Additional matter to foot-note 35. 2T Oregon. See Mclnnis v. Buchanan, 53 Oreg. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 929, 930. Washington. Owen v. Casey, 48 Wash. 673, 94 Pac. Rep. 473. 20 California. Coplew v. Durand, 153 Cal. 278, 279, 95 Pac. Rep. 38. Montana. Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 671. 21 See 334 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 22 California. City S. I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419, 432, 101 Pac. Rep. 308. Montana. Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 671. Oregon. The complaint need not allege in terms the presentation of such certificate: Mclnnis v. Buchanan, 53 Oreg. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 929, 930. 23 California. See Carlson v. Sheehan, 157 Cal. 692, 695, 109 Pac. Rep. 29. 24 California. Burke v. Dittus, 8 Cal. App. 175, 178, 96 Pac. Rep. 330. 25 California. Western L. & M. Co. v. Merchants' A. Co., 13 Cal. App. 4, 108 Pac. Rep. 891, 894. 26 See 680, this Supplement, ante, and see 689, this Supplement, post. 27 California. See Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 683-690 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 240 >i 683. Notice to owner. Additional matter to foot-note 36. 28 684. Same. Indebtedness due contractor from owner at time of notice. Additional matter to foot-note 40. 29 i 685. Same. Complaint by subcontractor's material- man. 30 686. Same. Notice to contractor. Action against S 687. Request of owner. Subclaimant. 688. Contract alleged presumed to be non-statutory. Additional matter to foot-note 44. 32 689. Void contract. It is not necessary to allege that anything was due from the owner to the contractor at the time of filing the claim of lien where the lien became direct by reason of the failure to comply with the requirements of the statutory original contract. 33 690. Same. Agreed price. Value. Where the plaintiff does not recover upon an express statutory original con- tract which has not been filed and was therefore void, but 28 California. Compare Klokke v. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 4, 96 Pac. Rep. 392. 29 California. Beck v. Schmidt, 13 Cal. App. 448, 110 Pac. Rep. 455, 457; Irwln v. Insurance Co. of N. A. (Cal. App.), 116 Pac. Rep. 294. See Trels v. Berlin D. W. & L. Co. (Cal. App.), 105 Pac. Rep. 275, 276: Burke v. Dlttus. 8 Cal. App. 175, 178, 96 Pac. Rep. 330. Mali. Chesney v. Chesney. 33 Utah 503, 94 Pac. Rep. 989. 30 See "Material-man," $$77 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 31 See if 547 et seq.. this Supplement, ante. -California. See Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 33 California. Western L. & M. Co. v. Merchants' A. Co.. 13 Cal. App. 4. 108 Pac. Rep. 891, 894; Lucas v. Gobbi. 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. Statutory original contract abolished by Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313. et seq. 241 COMPLAINT. 690-695 upon a quantum meruit, the validity of the contract as be- tween the parties is not called into question. 34 Additional matter to foot-note 50. 35 691. Same. Request of owner. Where the contract was void and the lien direct, it was held sufficient to allege that the material was furnished through the contractor as the agent of the owner, 36 or the plaintiff was at liberty to allege the facts as they occurred or to aver a direct agree- ment with the owner. 37 Additional matter to foot-note 51. 38 692. Ownership. Additional matter to foot-note 52. 39 693. Knowledge of improvement by owner. Additional matter to foot-note 57. 40 694. Notice of non-responsibility. 41 695. Agency. Authority of person causing improve- ment to be made. Additional matter to foot-note 62. 42 34 California. Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 43, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. 35 California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 36 California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 37 California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 38 California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 39 California. See Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 510, 105 Pac. Rep. 981, 986, 40 Nevada. See Tonopah L. Co. v. Nevada A. Co., 30 Nev. 445, 97 Pac. Rep. 636, 639. Oregon. Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. 41 See 469 et seq., this Supplement, ante; 42 Oregon. Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 71, 100 Pac. Rep. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303. Bloom's Sup. 16 696-706 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 242 696. Same. Mining claim. 43 697. Same. Contractor as agent of owner. Additional matter to foot-note 69. 44 698. Same. Allegations to bind contractor. 45 699. Materials. Additional matter to foot-note 73. 46 700. Same. Defect in complaint waived. 701. Same. Materials furnished. Dates. 47 702. Employment. Death of owner. 703. Nature of labor. 4 704. Same. Grading and other work. 48 ' 705. Object of labor. Well. 49 706. Claim of lien. Time of filing. The complaint must not show that the claim of lien was prematurely filed. 50 Additional matter to foot-note 87. 51 Additional matter to foot-note 88. 52 43 See Agency, {542 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 44 California. And likewise where the statutory original contract was void: Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. Oregon. See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202, 204. 45 See "Contractor," | 45 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 46 Colorado. See Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. New Mexico. See Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710. 47 See H 77 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 48 See 55 130 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 4a See 55 133, 139, 156 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 49 See f 166 et seq., this Supplement, ante. so California. Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 484, 94 Pac. Rep. 778. 51 Oregon. Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202. .'.-'Oregon. Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; a. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 181; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546. 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 243 COMPLAINT. 707.712 707. Same. Statutory completion for purpose of filing. Additional matter to foot-note 92. 53 708. Same. Alleging contents of claim. Generally. The complaint must show that the claim of lien filed con- tained the matters required by the statute and was filed in the proper place within the proper time. 54 Additional matter to foot-note 93. 55 709. Same. Name of owner. Additional matter to foot-note 94. 56 710. Same. Description of property to be charged with the lien. Additional matter to foot-note 95. 57 711. Same. Claim of lien as exhibit to complaint. Additional matter to foot-note 96. 58 Additional matter to foot-note 97. 59 712. Same. Terms, time given, and conditions of con- tract. Additional matter to foot-note 98. 60 Washington. Cornelius v. Washington , S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac.. Rep. 727, 729. 53 California. See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 54 California. Davis v. Treacy, 8 Cal. App. 295, 97 Pac. Rep. 78. 55 Oregon. Alleging verification of claim: See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202. Washington. See Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash., 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. 56 California. Compare Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 653, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. Oregon. See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202. 57 California. See Davis v. Treacy, 8 Cal. App. 395, 97 Pac. Rep. 78. Oregon. See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202. 58 California. See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 653, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 59 Washington. Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. eo Oregon. See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202. 713-722 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 244 713. Same. Variance between claim as an exhibit and allegations of complaint. Additional matter to foot-note 99. 61 714. Same. Unnecessary statements in claim as an ex- hibit. 715. Other interests. For what purpose alleged. Additional matter to foot-note 101. 62 716. Same. Alleging no other claim upon fund. Additional matter to foot-note 106. 63 717. Description of property. 64 718. Same. Land for convenient use and occupation. 05 719. Same. Description of whole or part of building. 00 720. Same. Description in claim of lien referred to. 66 721. Damages. Additional matter to foot-note 119. 67 722. Verification of complaint. 68 ei California. See Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 62 Oregon. Mortgagee alleging payment of Hen as permitted by mortgage must state all the material facts showing that the same were liens upon the property, and not mere conclusions of law: Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 450. 63 Washington. See North Coast Ry. Co. v. Hess, 56 Wash. 335, 105 Pac. Rep. 853. / 64 See {{ 399 et seq.. this Supplement, ante. 65 See J5 440 .et seq., this Supplement, ante. 66 See Si 399 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 67 AM to damages i California. See Bacigalupi v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App.), 112 Pac. Rep. 892; Fairchild-Gilmore- Wilton Co. v. Southern R. Co., 158 Cal. 264, 110 Pac. Rep. 951, 953: Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 41, 106 Pac. Rep. 413; Sherman v. Gray, 11 Cal. App. 348, 104 Pac. Rep. 1004. 68 See {'410, this Supplement, ante. 245 COMPLAINT. 723-727 723. Joinder of causes of action in complaint. Additional matter to foot-note 122. 69 Additional matter to foot-note 123. 70 724. Same. Designating causes of action separately. 725. Same. Reference from one cause of action to an- other. Additional matter to foot-note 127." J 726. Same. Actions that may be united in one com- plaint. Additional matter to foot-note 130. 72 727. Same. Objections, how raised. Additional matter to foot-note 132. 73 69 Joinder of actions on express contract and implied contract: Colorado. See Hall v. Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 415. Oregon. See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202, 204. Washington. See Holm v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 799. , 70 Montana. See Neuman v. Grant, 36 Mont. 77, 92 Pac. Rep. 43. Oklahoma. See Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. 71 California. Compare Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 40, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. 72 Utah. Joinder of legal and equitable causes of action: See Volker-Scowcroft L. Co. v. Vance (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 970, 972; s. c., 33 Utah 74, 88 Pac. Rep. 896. 73 Colorado. Hall v. Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 415. 728-730 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 246 'CHAPTER XXXVI. DEMURRER. 728. Demurrer. Generally. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 729. General demurrer. Where the complaint stated a cause of action on the implied promise or quantum meruit. a general demurrer was properly overruled, although it referred to the statutory original contract, which had not been filed, and was therefore void. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 3. 3 730. Same. Filing claim of lien. Time of completion of building. If it appears from the complaint that the claims of lien were filed prematurely, a general demurrer should be sustained in an action to foreclose the lien. 4 Additional matter to foot-note 7. 5 1 California. Harmlea* error In overruling demurrer on the ground of insufficiency of complaint as to damage: See Bacigalupi v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App.), 112 Pac. Rep. 892. Action to recover attorney*' fee* expended in suit to foreclose lien; demurrer: See Klokke v. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 4, 96 Pac. Rep. 392. Colorado. See Hall v. Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 514. Iriiilio. Failure of foreign corporation to comply with Mtatntory prerequiMteit; demurrer must be special, not general: Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 771. 2 California. Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 43, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. 3 California. A demand In the prayer is a sufficient statement of the amount of damages sustained as against general demurrer, where the facts stated sustain a judgment for damages in an action against the contractor and the contractor's sureties for damages for breaches of contract: Bacigalupi v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App.), 112 Pac. Rep. 892. New Mexico. Joint demurrer: See Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 605. Washington. Falling to allege written agreement for arbitration t See Owen v. Casey, 48 Wash. 673, 94 Pac. Rep. 473. 4 California. Baker v. Lake L. C. & I. Co., 7 Cal. App. 482, 484, 94 Pac. Rep. 773. 3 California. See Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652. 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 247 DEMURRER. gg 731-735 731. Same. Cessation from work. 732. Same. Claim of lien not setting forth plans and specifications. Additional matter to foot-note II. 7 733. Same. Variance between claim as exhibit and body of complaint. 8 734. Special demurrer. Misjoinder of parties. Where there is not an entire failure to allege non-payment, the averment is simply defective and can be reached only by special demurrer directed to that point. 9 Additional matter to foot-note 14. 10 735. Same. Ambiguity and uncertainty. 11 Conflict between claim as exhibit and body of complaint. A special demurrer addressed to the complaint generally is properly overruled. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 16. 13 6 See 354 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 7 New Mexico. Where there is nothing in the complaint to show that the contract had such fault in the claim of lien, and did not express the terms, time given and conditions of the contract, it is not subject to general demurrer on this ground: Gray v. New Mex- ico P. S.- Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604. 8 See 735, and "Variances," 835, et seq., this Supplement, post. 9 California. Burke v. Dittus, 8 Cal. App. 175, 177, 96 Pac. Rep. 330. 10 Oklahoma. See Choctaw O. & G. R. Co. v. Burgess, 21 Okl. 653, 97 Pac. Rep. 271; Davis v. Caruthers (Okl.), 97 Pac. Rep. 581. Oregon. Misjoinder of causes of action: See Bohn v. Wilson, 53 Oreg. 490, 101 Pac. Rep. 202, 204. Washington. See City of Spokane v. Costello, 57 Wash. 183, 106 Pac. Rep. 764, 767; Fransioli v. Thompson, 55 Wash. 259, 104 Pac. Rep. 278, 280. 11 Washington. Uncertainty: See Dickerman v. Reeder (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. 12 California. Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 40, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. 13 Colorado. See Hall v. Cudahy, 46 Colo. 324, 104 Pac. Rep. 415. Montana. Where allegations in different counts in a complaint to foreclose the lien are inherently contradictory, and both cannot pos- sibly be true, complaint is demurrable: Neuman v. Grant, 36 Mont. 77, 92 Pac. Rep. 43. 735-737 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 248 Additional matter to foot-note 17. 14 736. Same. Conflict. Bond as exhibit and allegations of complaint. 15 737. Same. Conclusions of law. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 10 14 California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 637. is See "Sureties," | 605 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 16 California. Amount "due and owing"; peelal demurreri See Burke v. Dlttus, 8 Cal. App. 175, 178, 96 Pac. Rep. 330. v nn. nut due": sprrinl iirimi rrrr : See Burke v. Dittus, supra. Oregon. "Valid Menu"; general demurrers See Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Greg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 450. 249 ANSWER, AND OTHER PLEADINGS. SS 738-743 CHAPTER XXXVII. ANSWER, AND OTHER PLEADINGS. 738. Answer. In general. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 739. Same. General denial. Additional matter to foot-note 3. 2 740. Same. Denials of conclusions of law. Ordinarily the words "due," "owing," and "payable," are conclusions of law, denial of which raises no issue. 3 741. Same. Negative pregnant. Additional matter to foot-note 8. 4 742. Same. Denials on information and belief. Additional matter to foot-note 13. 5 743. Same. Exception to rule. 1 Idaho. Failure of foreign corporations to comply with domestic law: objection made by answer: Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 771. Kansas. Statute of limitations growing immediately out of written contract relating to drilling of wells: See Bailey v. Fredonia G. Co., 82 Kan. 746, 109 Pac. Rep. 411, 413. Oregon. Reply to new matter in answer; departure: See Pioneer H. Co. v. Farrin (Oreg.), 107 Pac. Rep. 456. Defense as to agency: See Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 450. 2 'Washington. Special defense inconsistent -with general denial: See Helmer v. Title I. & G. Co., 50 Wash. 411, 97 Pac. Rep. 451, 452. 3 California. Irwin v. Ins. Co. of N. A. (Cal. App.), 116 Pac. Rep. 294. 4 Washington. Failure to deny authority of agent: See Driver v. Galland, 58 Wash. 62, 109 Pac. R6p. 593, 595. 5 Idaho. As to filing articles of incorporation and designating agent of foreign corporation: See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 800, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Washington. Sumpter v. Burnham, 51 Wash. 599, 99 Pac. Rep. 752. 744-753 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 250 744. Same. Evasive denials. Additional matter to foot-note 17. 745. Same. Deficiencies of complaint cured by answer. 746. Same. Special defenses. Where a structure is destroyed before completion, for instance, where a bridge is carried away by floods, the failure of the owner to derive benefits from the work performed by the contractors, if the loss be occasioned through fault of the owner, for example, by failing to provide the material as required by the con- tract, is no defense in an action based upon a common count or quantum meruit. 7 747. Same. Neglect of contractor to supply materials and proceed with work. 8 748. Same. Abandonment. 9 749. Same. Payments made by owner. 10 750. Same. Void contract as defense. 11 751. Same. Void contract no defense in personam. 12 752. Same. Mechanic's lien as defense to mortgage foreclosure. 753. Same. Counterclaim. Payments. 13 G \\HMiiiiiKton. Compare Helmer v. Title I. & G. Co., 50 Wash. 411, 97 Pac. Rep. 451, 452. T California. Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. 8 See | 519, 520 and 523, et seq., this Supplement, ante. See preceding: note. 10 See Si 547 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 11 California. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. 12 See preceding: note. 13 See 515 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 251 ANSWER, AND OTHER PLEADINGS. S 786. Same. Priorities. 40 787. Same. Time of filing claim of lien. 47 The burden is on the claimant to prove that he filed his claim of lien or statement within the prescribed statutory period. 48 Additional matter to foot-note 47. 49 Improvement: See Belknap v. Condon, 34 Utah 213, 97 Pac. Rep. 111. 114. 41 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760. 765; a. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; a. c., sub nom. Bur- nett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249. 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 42 Montana. Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. S69, 672 (appli- cation to items of extra work). 43 California. Sherman v. Gray, 11 Cal. App. 348, 104 Pac. Rep. 1004. '< \YniiiiiK<"n. Pacific L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869, 870. 45 California. The burden of proof of co-partner surety on con- tractor's bond acted with authority of co-partner is on owner: Bur- nett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 256, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett- Hicks Co. v. Glas. 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. 46 See Priorities, {{ 486 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 47 Strike out, in the fourth line of the section, the words "comple- tion of the building" and insert "the filing of his claim of lien was." 48 Colorado. Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. \\niiiiiiKtim. Pacific L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869. 870. 40 Idaho. See Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 771. Oregon. The burden of proof is on the principal contractor to prove substantial compliance with the contract or with the contract as modified by the parties from time to time, or that the owner waived compliance: Adams v. Mackenzie (Oreg.), 114 Pac. Rep. 460. Burden on claimant to show no unnecessary or unreasonable delay in performance to postpone period for filing claim: See Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c.. 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 259 EVIDENCE. 788-794 788. Same. Cessation from work. Additional matter to foot-note 48. 50 789. Certificate as evidence. Additional matter to foot-note 49. 51 Additional matter to foot-note 50. 52 790. Same. Conclusiveness of certificate. Additional matter to foot-note 52. 53 791. Same. Certificate as evidence of time of comple- tion of building. 54 792. Completion of building. 53 793. Same. Statutory evidence. 56 794. Non-completion of building. 50 California. Testimony regarding amount and value of work done up to time of abandonment; evidence in rebuttal: See C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 144, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. Burden on owner to show affirmatively tbat holidays extended his time to post notice of non-responsibility and that such notice was given within the statutory time: John R. Gentle & Co. v. Britton, 158 Cal. 328, 330, 111 Pac. Rep. 9. Idaho. Burden on owner to show material-men had knowledge of existence of more than one original contract: See Valley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 771. 51 Washington. Certificate to prove damage to owner as against surety on contractor's bond: See Lazelle v. Empire State S. Co., 58 Wash. 589, 109 Pac. Rep. 195, 197. 52 See City S. I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419, 428, 101 Pac. Rep. SOS. 53 California. As to performance of work: See City S. I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419, 428, 431, 432, 101 Pac. Rep. 308. Oregon. But a certificate as to estimates of amount of work done is not conclusive in the absence of a provision in the contract making it conclusive: Williams v. Mount Hood Ry. & T. Co. (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 490, 492, 111 Pac. Rep. 17. "Washington. Conclusive as to cost of completion upon abandon- ment: Lazelle v. Empire State S. Co., 58 Wash. 589, 109 Pac. Rep. 195, 197. As to estimates: See McKibor v. Savage (Wash.), 110 Pac. Rep. 811, 812. 54 See "Certificates," 239 et seq., and 789 et seq., this Supple- ment, ante. . 55 See "Performance," 334 et seq., this Supplement, ante. so See 416 et seq., 350 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 795, 796 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 260 795. Claim of lien. As evidence of lien. The introduc- tion of the claim of lien in evidence is not to prove its con- tents, but to establish that notice has been given as required by law. It is entitled to admission when it is shown that it complies with the statutory requirements. If the signature and verification are sufficient to entitle it to be filed with the recorder and it was so filed, it becomes a public record, and thereafter may be received in evidence under the rules gov- erning the admission of public recorded writings. No proof of the genuineness of the signatures to either the claim or the verification is a necessary preliminary to the admission in evidence of a claim of lien properly verified and filed for record. 57 Additional matter to foot-note 65. 58 Additional matter to foot-note 66. 59 796. Same. Objections to contents of claim. If the issue is raised that the description of the property in the claim of lien is not sufficient for identification, the claimant may introduce evidence in support of the sufficiency of the description. 60 When objection is made that sufficient foun- dation has not been laid for the introduction of the recorded claim of lien, the particulars wherein the foundation is not sufficient should be specified. 61 The terms of his subcon- tract, if controverted, must be proved by the subclaimant substantially as set out in his claim of lien. 62 ST California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 476. 58 Nevada. Omlnnlonii of esentlal In claim can not be aided by averment In complaint or extrinsic evidence. Porteous D. Co. v. Fee, 29 Nev. 375, 91 Pac. Rep. 135, 136. se Alaska. Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte (C. C. A.), 185 Fed. Rep. 752. 755. Claim not competent to prove that work In done or that it is done under terms and conditions alleged therein or alleged in the com- plaint: Pioneer M. Co. v. Delamotte, supra. California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 476. eo California. Patten & Davies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 25, 98 Pac. Rep. 37, 38. ei California. D. I. Nofzlger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 476. 62 California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 645, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 261 EVIDENCE. 796-799 Additional matter to foot-note 68. 63 Additional matter to foot-note 71. 64 Additional matter to foot-note 72. 65 797. Extra work. Additional matter to foot-note 73. 66 798. Valid contract. Additional matter to foot-note 76. G " 799. Same. Parol modifications of written contract. A custom to do work in a particular way, if relevant under any circumstances, cannot prevail as against a contrary provision of the contract. 68 If there is no objection to evidence ad- mitted showing the modification of the original contract by parol and the trial court's attention is not properly called thereto, the objection is waived. 69 Additional matter to foot-note 77. 70 63 Kansas. Dealing with lien statement as if In evidence, omission to formally introduce It is not prejudicial. Home L. & S. Co. v. School Dist. (Kan.), 115 Pac. Rep. 590. Washington. Objections to the sufficiency of lien notice must be raised at the time when it is offered in evidence: Cornelius v. Wash- ington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. 6-t Washington. Compare Wetzler v. Nichols, 53 Wash. 285, 101 Pac. Rep. 867, 868. 65 Idaho. Certain evidence as to extra work examined: See Rath- bun v. State, 15 Idaho 273, 97 Pac. Rep. 335, 337. Montana. Presumption that there were no extras, in absence of writing required by contract: Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 671. Evidence inadmissible to prove extra work or agreement for extra work in absence of writing required by contract or issue proved that contract was modified or this provision waived: See Piper v. Murray, supra. 60 Idaho. Compare Sanders v. Keller (Idaho), 111 Pac. Rep. 350, 352. See 766, this Supplement, ante. 67 California. See Bacigalupi . v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App.), 112 Pac. Rep. 892. 68 California. C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 143, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. See Puritas L. Co. v. Greene (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 660. 69 California. Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 42, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. 70 Oregon. Where subsequent modification of contract is not pleaded evidence can not be offered to prove it; likewise with reference to waiver of performance. 800-805 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 262 800. Same. Contract admissible to show character of building. 71 801. Same. Contract as evidence with reference to time of performance of labor. 802. Inadmissibility of indefinite contract. 7 - 803. Parol evidence in aid of false reference. No oral evidence can be received to show that plans and specifica- tions were intended by the parties to form a part of their statutory original contract. 73 Additional matter to foot-note 82. 74 804. Parol evidence not admissible for construction of contract. 7r> Additional matter to foot-note 84. 76 805. Same. Rule not applicable to mere memorandum. Additional matter to foot-note 85. 77 TI See 58792 et seq., and 315 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 72 See i 208, this Supplement, ante. 73 California. Hartwell v. Ganahl L. Co., 8 Cal. App. 733, 736, 97 Pac. Rep. 901. 74 Watihlngton. See Dickerman v. Reeder (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. 75 A* to linen of grading: See Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 612, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. 70 Kantian. Evidence of content* admitted on cross-examination after being ruled out on direct examination, re-examination not pre- judicial. See St. Louis and S. F. R. Co. v. Gaba, 78 Kan. 432, 97 Pac. Rep. 435. Montana. See Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 672. General rule a* to Inadmlmilblllty of parol evidence! Oklahoma. Standard L. Co. v. Miller & Vidor L. Co., 21 Okl. 617, 96 Pac. Rep. 761, 764. Oregon. Holland v. Rhoades (Oregf.), 106 Pac. Rep. 779. South Dakota. Strunk v. Smith, 8 So. Dak. 407, 66 N. W. Rep. 926. I'tah. Midgley v. Campbell B. Co. (Utah), 112 Pac. Rep. 820. Washington. Driver v. Galland (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 593, 594; Tobin v. McArthur, 56 Wash. 523, 106 Pac. Rep. 180. General rule applied to leaae with reference to duty to make re- pairs: Hockersmith v. Ferguson (Wash.), 116 Pac. Rep. 11. 77 Oregon. Compare Williams v. Mount Hood Ry. & P. Co. (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 490, 111 Pac. Rep. 17. Washington. But see Goss v. Northern Pac. H. Assoc. of Tacoma, 50 Wash. 236. 96 Pac. Rep. 1078. 263 EVIDENCE. | 806-811 806. Same. Performance of contract. Additional matter to foot-note 86. 78 807. Void original contract admissible for what pur- pose. 79 808. Same. Invalidity, how shown. Additional matter to foot-note 88. 80 809. Malperformance of work. The question of whether taking bricks out of the foot of a wall would weaken the same is not the subject of expert evidence, and is properly excluded as calling for opinion evidence not expert, and for matters of common observation. 81 Additional matter to foot-note 90. 82 810. Liquidated damages. Additional matter to foot-note 91. 83 811. Damages. Circumstances surrounding execution of contract. Defendant in default. Additional matter to foot-note 92. 84 78 Expert evidence: See 809 of Treatise. 79 See 319 et seq., Supplement, ante. so California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 81 California. Hedstrom v. Union Trust Co., 7 Cal. App. 278, 287, 94 Pac. Rep. 386. 82 California. Expert evidence as to amount of work done: See C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 137, 143, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. See 806 of Treatise. Montana. Expert can not substitute his judgment in place of that of the architect or jury as to whether a claimant was entitled to a certificate for final payment: Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 673. See this case generally as to expert evidence. Oklahoma. As to expert evidence: See Yates v. Garrett, 19 Okl. 449, 92 Pac. Rep. 142. Oregon. Contractors and builders as experts on falling building from lack of lateral suppo'rt, and what is necessary to be done and is usual under such circumstances: See Weiss v. Kohlhagen (Oreg.), 113 Pac. Rep. 46, 50. 83 California. Evidence as to liquidated damages: See Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 612, 95 Pac. Rep. 382; Sherman v. Gray, 11 Cal. App. 348, 104 Pac. Rep. 1004. 84 California. Damages by explosion: See Higgins v. Los Angeles 812-811) MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 264 812. Presumption of knowledge by subclaimants of valid contract. 8 -" $ 813. Evidence of benefit conferred. Additional matter to foot-note 95. 86 814. Acceptance of performance. Where the com- plaint states a good cause of action in indebitatus assumpsit, or on a common count, it is immaterial whether the work which the contractor did for the owner was not performed in time under the contract, or under a modification of it, if the owner accepts the work; and evidence showing that the work was done in the completion of the structure is admis- sible. 87 Additional matter to foot-note 96. 88 815. Evidence of liability in case of failure to perform, or abandonment. 89 816. Estoppel as evidence. General rule. Additional matter to foot-note 99. 90 G. & E. Co. (Cal. Sup.), 115 Pac. Rep. 313; Linforth v. San Francisco G. & E. Co., 156 Cal. 58, 63, 103 Pac. Rep. 320. Damage* for breach of contract to deliver material*! See Fairchlld- Gllmore-Wllton Co. v. Southern R. Co., 158 Cal. 264, 110 Pac. Rep. 951. 954. KIIIINIIM. DamagreNt See Fredonla G. Co. v. Bailey, 77 Kan. 296, 94 Pac. Rep. 258. Wanhlng-ton. Damagei* for delay; presumption: See Goss v. North- ern Pac. H. Assoc. of Tacoma, 50 Wash. 236, 96 Pac. Rep. 1078. 85 See {315 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 86 California. See Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 237, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. 87 California. Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 35, 41. 106 Pac. Rep. 413. 88 Utah. See Ryan v. Curlew I. & R. Co. (Utah), 104 Pac. Rep. 218, 220. so See SS 586 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 00 California. Entoppel by InducInK material-men to deliver Miibne- quent lots of material, relying upon former accounts rendered, re- tained and acquiesced in: See Stimson M. Co. v. Hughes Mfg. Co., 5 Cal. App. 559, 97 Pac. Rep. 322, 333. Oklahoma. Estoppel an to location of plant by designation of place: See Minnetonka O. Co. v. Cleveland V. B. Co. (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 326. Oregon. AM to waiver of performance t See Williams v. Mt. Hood Ry. and P. Co. (Oreg.), Ill Pac. Rep. 17. 110 Pac. Rep. 490. 265 EVIDENCE. 816-821 Additional matter to foot-note 100. 91 817. Same. Judgment. 92 818. Same. Owner estopped. Where the owner does not file a notice of completion of the building or cessation of work, as required by the statute, evidence that the owner stated that the building was not completed nor accepted, made to the plaintiff and acted upon by him, is competent for the purpose of proving or tending to prove the fact as to when the building was completed, and also for the purpose of proving that the owner is estopped from claiming that the claim of lien was not filed in time. 93 Additional matter to foot-note 104. 94 819. Same. Owner estopped by acts of reputed owner. 95 820. Same. Surety not estopped to foreclose Uen. Additional matter to foot-note 108. 96 821. Same. Estoppel of contractors on bond. Additional matter to foot-note 109. 97 Washington. Waiver of lien: See Pacific L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869, 870. 91 California. Hubbard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 609, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 528. Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. Colorado. Gillett v. Young, 45 Colo. 562, 101 Pac. Rep. 766, 768. 92 See 904, this Supplement, post. 93 California. Hubbard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 528. 94 California. State estopped to urge that contractor has not per- formed contract Tvhen there is no fraud on his part operating to prevent discovery of defects: See City S. I. Co. v. Marysville, 155 Cal. 419, 428, 101 Pac. Rep. 308. Colorado. Owner estopped to set up claim for damages: See Gil- let v. Young, 45 Colo. 562, 101 Pac. Rep. 766, 768. Washington. Estoppel as to street grading, even though ordinance did not authorize the same: See Ettor v. City of Tacoma, 57 Wash. 50, 107 Pac. Rep. 1061. 95 See 469 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 96 See 619 and 620, this Supplement, ante. California. See particularly Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 861; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c.. sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 97 Washington. Contractor and surety estopped to raise question of 822-826 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 266 822. Forfeiture and fraud. 08 i 823. Same. Rescission as evidence of fraud. 00 824. Same. Fraudulent representations. 825. Use of materials in building. Additional matter to foot-note 117. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 11 8. 101 Additional matter to foot-note 119. 102 826. Money advanced. ultra vires: See City of Spokane v. Costello, 57 Wash. 183. 106 Pac. Rep. 764, 766. os See, generally, "Forfeiture of lien," 5 627 et seq., and 5207, this Supplement, ante. oo See JS 326 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 100 Montana. Herenay evidence as to quality of material: See Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 673. 101 Colorado. Evidence of delivery and une held nufllclenti See Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. Idaho. EntrleM In bookn competent 1 prove delivery of material: See Valley L. and Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 26. Kinixiis. Evidence of une of material* in building proof that they were furnished to be used and unless shown that they were intended for another purpose it will be presumed that they had been con- tracted for to be used in the building: Smith v. Chicago L. & C. Co. (Kan.), 114 Pac. Rep. 372, 373, 374; Deatherage v. Henderson, 43 Kan. 684. 688, 23 Pac. Rep. 1052, 1053. New Mexico. See Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710; receipt as evidence of use of material: See Neher v. Viviani (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 698. See | 778 this Supplement, ante. WanhlnKton. Evidence an to une of material*! See Little Bros. M. Co. v. Baker, 57 Wash. 311, 106 Pac. Rep. 910. KiiiiMH*. Proof of delivery See National S. Co. v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co., 76 Kan. 914. 92 Pac. Rep. 1111, 1113; s. c., sub nom. Atkin v. Wyandotte C. & L. Co., 73 Kan. 768, 84 Pac. Rep. 1040, quoting Rice v. Hodge. 26 Kan. 170. Oregon. Evidence of delivery of electricity! Grants Pass B. & T. Co. v. Enterprise M. Co. (Oreg.), 113 Pac. Rep. 859. \\iiNlilnKton. Evidence of delivery! See Little Bros. M. Co. v. Baker, 57 Wash. 311, 106 Pac. Rep. , quoting Rice v. Hodge, 26 Kan. 164. 102 Colorado. An to nece**lty of nhowlnic what portion of material* furnlnhed to subcontractor acting under several different original contractors: See Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570. 573. 267 EVIDENCE. 8 27 ? 828 827. Questions of fact. The following are questions of fact: Performance of contract; 103 knowledge of or consent to assignment; 104 and amount of land necessary for con- venient use and occupation of the structure. 105 Where there is a conflict in the evidence as to the time of perform- ance or completion of the contract, and no time for perform- ance is stated in the contract, it is a question of fact whether or not the building was completed within a reasonable time; 106 and likewise whether notice has been given to a surety within a reasonable time is a question of fact. 107 Additional matter to foot-note 131. 108 828. Questions of law. Whether an amount is due and owing, 109 and "payable," 110 or whether liens were "valid," 111 or whether a building was an unlawful struct- ure, 112 is a conclusion of law. AVhere there is no dispute as to the time of performance and no time is specified in the contract, it is a question of law for the court as to whether the contract was performed within a reasonable time. 113 103 Colorado. Idaho G. C. M. & M. Co. v. Colorado I. W. Co. (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 553, 555. Oregon. Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oreg. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. 104 Washington. Strandell v. Moran, 49 Wash. 533, 95 Pac. Rep. 1106. 105 Utah. Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 101 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. 106 New Mexico. Neher v. Viviani (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 697; Cowles v. Hagerman (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 843, 844; s. c., sub nom. Hagerman v. Cowles, 14 N. M. 422, 94 Pac. Rep. 946, but see 828, this Supplement, post. 107 California. Bacigalupi v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App.), 112 Pac. Rep. 892, 895. 108 California. Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 611, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. Montana. Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 672. Oregon. Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533. 109 California. Burke v. Dittus, 8 Cal. App. 175, 178, 96 Pac. Rep. 330; Beck v. Schmidt, 13 Cal. App. 448, 110 Pac. Rep. 455, 457; Irwin v. Insurance Co. of N. A. (Cal. App.), 116 Pac. Rep. 294. Utah. Chesney v. Chesney, 33 Utah 503, 94 Pac. Rep. 989. no California. Irwin v. Insurance Co. of N. A. (Cal. App.), 116 Pac. Rep. 294. 111 Oregon. Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 450. 112 Oregon. Morton v. Wessinger (Oreg.), 113 Pac. Rep. 7. us New Mexico. Neher v. Viviani (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 697; Cowles v. Hagerman (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 843-844; s. c., sub nom. Hagerman v. Cowles, 14 N. M. 422, 94 Pac. Rep. 946. 828-831 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. o ( ;, s It cannot be said as a matter of law that the completion of a contract to do the plumbing in a house in the course of construction is a completion of the building. 114 The con- struction of a written building contract is for the court and not for the jury; 115 and the sufficiency of the consideration under an oral contract is for the determination of the court. 110 Additional matter to foot-note 134. 117 829. Value. Valid contract as evidence thereof. Ac- tion on implied contract. Where the claimant offers to prove the contract and the furnishing of the materials there- under, in the absence of any objection this seems to include proof of the value of the materials as specified in the con- tract. 118 Additional matter to foot-note 140. 119 830. Same. Common counts. Additional matter to foot-note 141. 12 831. Same. Contract as evidence of extra work. Ex- press contract. Additional matter to foot-note 142. 121 IK Oregon. Coffey v. Smith, 52 Oreg. 538, 97 Pac. Rep. 1079; s. c., 52 Oregr. 545, 97 Pac. Rep. 1081; s. c., 52 Oreg. 546, 97 Pac. Rep. 1082. us New Mexico. Neher v. Vivian! (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 698. 110 Washington. Evans v. Oregon & W. R. Co., 58 Wash. 429, 108 Pac. Rep. 1095, 1097. iiT California. Whether causes of delay extending time to complete contract not a question of law unless so provided in the contract: See Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 42, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. us California. D. I. Nofziger L. Co. v. Solomon, 13 Cal. App. 621, 110 Pac. Rep. 474, 477. 119 California. See Falrchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co., 158 Cal. 264, 110 Pac. Rep. 951, 954; Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. \\nNhiiiKtnn. See Home v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 799. 120 California. Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 42. 106 Pac. Rep. 413. See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764; e. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Utah. Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004, 1007. 121 See f 797, this Supplement, ante. 269 EVIDENCE. 832-834 832. Same. Void contract. Additional matter to foot-note 143. 122 833. Same. Market price. Usual price. Additional matter to foot-note 149. 123 834. Same. Other evidence of value. In an action against the original contractor and his surety for breach of contract upon abandonment, the actual cost of completion is some evidence of the value or reasonable cost, where the owner receives bids for completing the work and gives the contract to the lowest bidder. 124 Additional matter to foot-note 153. 125 122 California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Gal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. The statutory original contract was abolished by Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. 123 California. "Price" as Indicating money or some other equiva- lent: See Kinard v. Jordan, 10 Cal. App. 219, 101 Pac. Rep. 696, 698. 124 California. Bacigalupi v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App.), 112 Pac. Rep. 892. 125 California. Evidence held sufficient shows the competency of builder to give opinion as to cost of repairing building: Higgins v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co. (Cal. Sup.), 115 Pac. Rep. 313. Idaho. Owner of personal property qualified to state value: See Rankin v. Caldwell, 15 Idaho 625, 99 Pac. Rep. 108. Oregon. Brown v. Truax (Oreg.), 115 Pac. Rep. 597, 599. j 835-839 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 270 CHAPTER XXXIX. VARIANCES. 835. Variances. Generally. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 836. Claim of lien. Pleadings. Proof. Generally. Additional matter to foot-note 6. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 7. 3 Additional matter to foot-note 8. 4 837. Claim of lien. Pleadings. Material variances." 1 838. Same. Persons contracting. Husband and wife. 839. Same. Immaterial variances. Whore the claim of lien sets forth that the name of the owner and reputed owner of the building is a certain person and the complaint alleges that the material was furnished to said persons and other persons, owners of the property, and the answer does not deny the allegation of the complaint in reference to the ownership it is not a variance. 7 i \ iiiciiiliiM-ni of claim of lirn by tatutory permlftitlon, see 415, this Supplement, ante. Oregon. Departure In pleadlngns See Pioneer H. Co. v. Farrln (Oreg.). 107 Pac. Rep. 456. -'California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 651, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. Expren* contract and implied promlite! See Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 41, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. 3 California. Separate contract for Indemnity not part of contract of contractor: See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 765; 8. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 4 Montana. Joint contract alleged and evidence showing separate contract; no failure of proof: Logan v. Billings & N. R. Co., 40 Mont. 467. 107 Pac. Rep. 415. s See "Claim of lien," generally, | 370 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 6 See |849, this Supplement, post. - California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 271 VARIANCES. 840-846 840. Same. Valid, void contract. Owner purchasing directly. 8 841. Same. Description of property. 842. Same. Payments. Additional matter to -foot-note 17. 10 843. Claim of lien and proof. Generally. The test as to the sufficiency of the claim of lien with respect to the terms and conditions of the contract is whether such notice so far departs from the terms and conditions of the contract as to render it misleading to the injury of the owner. If it does, the variance is fatal. If, however, there is a substantial agreement between the contract and claim, so that there can not arise in the mind of the owner any misapprehension as to the extent and nature of the lienor's claim, then any technical variance which may appear will be immaterial. 11 844. Same. Material variances. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 12 845. Same. Time of payment. Additional matter to foot-note 26. 13 846. Same. Nature of labor. Additional matter to foot-note 27. 14 8 California. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by Amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. 9 See "Description," 399 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 10 California. Terms of payment as stated in contract and claim of lien; held no variance: See Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 229, 232, 101 Pac. Rep. 691. 11 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glass, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 12 California. But see generally Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 764; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. is California. But see Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 645, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. 14 New Mexico. See Gray v. New Mexico B. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 605. 847-850 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 272 847. Same. Deducting credits and offsets. Amount paid. There is no material difference between the statement of the amount due without setting up the credits and the statement of the .whole amount of the debit side of the account and also of the credits. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 28. 1(J 848. Same. Immaterial variances. Where the claim of lien sets forth that the name of the owner and reputed owner of the building is a certain person and the evidence shows that he was the owner of the property until the build- ing was completed, when it was conveyed to another person for#vhom he acted as agent throughout the entire transac- tion, there is no variance. 17 849. Same. Person contracting. A claim stated that the material was sold and furnished to C. and the complaint so alleged; and the evidence showed that the material was sold to H. and the court found that the material was sold, furnished and delivered to W., H. and a fourth person ; held that the lien was invalid. 18 Additional matter to foot-note 32. 19 850. Same. Contract. Date of contract. Additional matter to foot-note 33. 20 x is California. Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641. 646, 102 Pac. Rep. 822. 101 Pac. Rep. 537. ie California. See Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 645, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. IT California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. is California. Hogan v. Bigler, 8 Cal. App. 71, 96 Pac. Rep. 97. IB Oregon. Where the claim of Hen sets forth that the material and labor was furnished upon a contract with a certain person as the subcontractor under another person as an original contractor and the evidence shows that such original contractor contracted with the owner to construct the building but there is no evidence of any contractual relation between such alleged subcontractor and the origi- nal contractor, there is a fatal variance: Equitable S. & L. Assoc. v. Hewitt (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 447, 450. 20 California. Where the claim of lien and complaint alleged a cer- tain amount due for material, including labor for delivery thereof, such reference to labor is immaterial and may be rejected as sur- plusage, where the evidence shows that no extra charge was made 273 VARIANCES, 851-855 851. Same. Implied Contract. Express contract. Where the material-man 's claim of lien states that the contractor agreed to pay for material at the current market or list prices for such material in the market at a certain rate on demand, and the evidence, as a whole, shows that the ma- terial was to be paid for upon demand after delivery, and that it was the practice of the claimant not to make such demand until after the completion of the building, there is no fatal variance. 21 Where the complaint and claim of lien set forth an express contract and the evidence shows no agreement to pay a definite amount, there is no variance. 22 852. Same. Nature of work. Where the complaint al- leged that the material was furnished for the construction of a "dwelling," and the evidence showed that part of the ma- terial was used in a wood-shed on the same lot, the latter was considered part of the dwelling, and there was no variance. 23 Additional matter to foot-note 38. 24 853. Pleading and proof. Generally. 854. Same. Material variances. Contract. 25 855. Same. Valid, void contract. Contracting directly with owner or agent. Additional matter to foot-note 44. 26 therefor, that is, that the price of the lumber included the d3livery: Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 653, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 21 California. San Pedro L. Co. v. Schroeder, 156 Cal. 158, 103 Pac. Rep. 888. 22 California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 23 California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 651, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 24 New Mexico. As to nature of labor in a mining claim: See Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 605. Washington. As to "construction" and "alteration," "improvement or repair": See Stetson & Post L. Co. v. W. & J. Sloane Co. (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 248, 24*9, 250. 25 See 351, this Supplement, ante. 26 California. . As to contracting directly with owner under void contract: See Lucas v. Rea, 10 Cal. App. 641, 102 Pac. Rep. 822, 101 Pac. Rep. 537. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by Amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). Bloom's Sup. 18 856-863 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 74 856. Same. Indefinite contract. 27 857. Same. Person contracting. 28 858. Same. Nature of work. 29 859. Same. Fund. Contractual indebtedness. 860. Same. Immaterial variances. Where there are several contracts to paint four houses and the evidence shows an agreement made at the same time to paint the fifth house, it does not constitute a variance. 30 Additional matter to foot-note 50. 31 861. Same. Time of payment. Additional matter to foot-note 53. 32 862. Same. Subclaimant. Owner's employees. Where the complaint alleges that the material was furnished to three persons named, owners of the property, and there is no denial of the allegation of ownership, and the evidence shows that one of the persons named was the owner of the property until the building was completed, when he con- veyed it to another of the persons named, for whom he acted as agent throughout the entire transaction, there is no vari- ance. 33 Additional matter to. foot-note 54. 34 863. Same. Bond. Signed by principals. Unsigned. See 5 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. 27 See SS 208 and 296 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 28 See SS 381 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 29 See Si 130 et seq., and 395, this Supplement, ante. so California. Rockwell v. Light, 6 Cal. App. 563, 566, 92 Pac. Rep. 649. si California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 82 California. Term* of payment* See Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 229, 232, 101 Pac. Rep. 691. ss California. Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 650, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. 34 Montana. Joint contract alleged; separate contract with some proved; no variance: Logan v. Billings & N. R. Co., 40 Mont. 467, 107 Pac. Rep. 415. ss See SS 608 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 275 TRIAL AND PRACTICE. ss 864-866 CHAPTER XL. TRIAL AND PRACTICE. 864. Practice. In general. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 865. Amendment. Express and implied contract. Additional matter to foot-note 4. 2 866. Same. Modification of contract. 1 California. Setting aside judgment and filing amended complaint: See Lemon v. Hubbard, 10 Cal. App. 471, 476, 102 Pac. Rep. 554. Idaho. As to bill of particulars, see Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 794, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Kansas. Dismissal of action: See Barney v. Ferguson (Kan.), 114 Pac. Rep. 1055; Deatherage L. Co. v. Miles (Kan.), 116 Pac. Rep. 505. Montana. Inspection of building in discretion of court: Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 659, 673. Oklahoma. Change of venue: See Jones v. Balsley (Okl.)., Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. Washington. Bill of particulars: See Bellingham v. Linck, 53 Wash. 208, 101 Pac. Rep. 843, 844. Recovery on bond In action to foreclose lien; sureties must be served with process or make appearance before judgment can be entered against them: Kalb-Gilbert L. Co. v. Cram (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 1050; s. c., 57 Wash. 550, 107 Pac. Rep. 281 (Maritime lien). 2 Striking amended complaint from files: See Klokke v. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 4, 96 Pac. Rep. 392. motion to amend conclusions of law so as to avoid a lien: See Hubbard v. Lee, 10 Cal. App. 477, 479, 102 Pac. Rep. 528; s. c., 6 Cal. App. 602, 92 Pac. Rep. 744. Colorado. Amending complaint declaring as subcontractor so as to allege claimant to be principal contractor, in order to show that lien statement was filed within time: See Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. Kansas. Amendment setting forth conditional interest in the prop- erty subsequently acquired: See Robert Garret L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556, 109 Pac. Rep. 179, 180. Kansas. Refusal of amendment: See McCullough v. S. J. Hayde C. Co., 82 Kan. 734, 109 Pac. Rep. 176. Utah. Amendment from express to Implied contract: See Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004. Washington. Amendment of claim of lien under statutory allow- ance: See Stetson & Post L. Co. v. W. & J. Sloane Co. (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 248; Brown v. Trimble, 48 Wash. 270, 93 Pac. Rep. 317. 867-870 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 276 867. Same. Description of property.' 5 Additional matter to foot-note 7. 4 868. Same. Relation of amendment to time of com- mencing action. Additional matter to foot-note 8. 5 $ 869. Consolidation of actions. Consolidation of action for the purpose of trial of all the eases does not change the issues in the respective cases, nor render the admissions of the pleadings ineffectual when applied to the particular cases in which they are made. 6 But where one of the subclaim- ants sets up in his complaint a valid and properly filed origi- nal contract and the action is subsequently consolidated with others alleging facts showing that the original contract is void, the finding thereon binds all the parties to the action and any of the plaintiffs can deny the validity of the con- tracts. 7 Actions to foreclose liens of subclaimants may be properly consolidated, and though the liens may fail, per- sonal judgments may be entered against the original con- tractor. Additional matter to foot-note 10. 8 870. Same. Rights of claimants against one another. Additional matter to foot-note 16. ft 3 See H 399 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 4 WanlilDKton. See Brown v Trimble, 48 Wash. 270, 93 Pac. Rep. 317. s California. See Lemon v. Hubbard, 10 Cal. App. 471, 476, 102 Pac. Rep. 554. e California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 526, 97 Pac. Rep. 420. T California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. 8 Kanaaa. Refusal to consolidate action for breach of construction contract against subcontractor and surety with action to foreclose lien by subcontract, properly denied, where contractor admitted liability, less amount of damages claimed in action for breachi McCul- lough v. S. J. Hayde C. Co., 82 Kan. 734, 109 Pac. Rep. 176. \YiiMiiinKtn. See Ferdig v. Simpson, 47 Wash. 475, 92 Pac. Rep. 370. 9 California. Compare Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 97 Pac. Rep. 414/420. 277 TRIAL AND PRACTICE. e 37^ 871. Deposit of money in court. In New York, where the statute authorizes the owner to discharge liens by deposit- ing in court the amount of the claim, it is well settled that upon such deposit being made, the lien is shifted from the land to the fund in court, and that no lien claimant who fails to establish his right to a lien is entitled to share in such fund; 10 and this rule was held applicable under a statute not providing for such deposit. 11 Where the terms of the deposit are general, the deposit serves the purpose of saving the owner from costs, and it must continue to remain in the custody of the court to abide the final judgment in the case. It cannot be withdrawn pending an appeal, as it would take away the spirit and vi- tality of the court's judgment; and in California no such right is deducible from the statutory provision relating to appeals and stay of execution. 12 To abide the judgment. And when a deposit of the fund is made into the court by the owner "to abide the judgment of the court," this is construed to mean the final judgment; and there is no final judgment while the appeal is pending. 13 If the County Treasurer holds the fund, he does so as the custodian of the court ; and the owner is not entitled, during an appeal, to a writ of mandate to compel the return of the deposit, where the court does not make an order for its re- turn. 13 Additional matter to foot-note 18. 14 10 California. Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 413, 101 Pac. Rep. 307. New York. Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413, 39 Am. Rep. 674; Schil- linger, etc., Co. v. Arnott, 86 Hun. 182, 33 N. T. Supp. 343, affirmed, 152 N. Y. 584, 46 N. E. Rep. 956. 11 California. Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 413, 101 Pac. Rep. 307. 12 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 523, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. is California. Higgins v. Keyes, 5 Cal. App. 482, 90 Pac. Rep. 972. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Hlggins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 523, 97 Pac. Rep. 414. 14 Kansas. As to equitable power of court to authorize substitu- tion of deposit for lien and authorize release, in absence of statutory permission: See Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1005. 872,873 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 872. Same. Payment of balance of fund. 15 When the fund is deposited with the clerk of the court it is his duty, unless otherwise directed by law or order of court, to pay it over to the treasurer. 16 The right of the court to distribute that portion of the sura awarded to the contractor upon the deposit in the court by the owner among the persons obtaining personal judg- ments against the contractor is a matter which concerns the contractor only, and the owner cannot question the same. The owner is only interested in having returned to him what- ever excess of the fund there may be over and above the amount found due to the original contractor. 17 Additional matter to foot-note 19. 18 Additional matter to foot-note 20. 19 S5 873. Intervention. Effect of. Additional matter to foot-note 21. 20 Washington. Tender: See Hughes & Co. v. Flint (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 633, 635. As to tender into Court: See Ferdlg v. Simpson, 47 Wash., 475, 92 Pac. Rep. 370. 15 Deposit OB condemnation proceeding* taking place of property upon which lien exIMm See North Coast Ry. Co. v. Hess, 56 Wash. 335, 105 Pac. Rep. 853; Omaha B. & T. Co. v. Reed, 69 Neb. 514, 96 N. W. Rep. 276: Calumet River Ry. Co. v. Brown, 136 111. 322, 26 N. E. Rep. 501, 12 L. R. A. 84: Watson v. New York C. R. Co.. 47 N. Y., 162; Utter v. Richmond. 112 N. Y., 610, 20 N. E. Rep. 554. 10 California. Higgins v. Keyes, 5 Cal. App. 482, 484, 90 Pac. Rep. 972. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 523, 97 Pac. Rep. 414. IT California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 522, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420, (and it was deemed unnecessary to determine whether the trial court was or was 'not authorized either by the statute or the terms of the deposit to distribute the fund among those merely obtaining personal judgments against the contractor, and who had not established their liens against the property of the owner). is See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 522, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 19 California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 523. 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Higgins v. Keyes, 5 Cal. App. 482, 90 Pac. Rep. 972. 20 California. See Hartwell v. Ganahl L. Co., 8 Cal. App. 733, 97 Pac. Rep. 901. Wyoming. See Greenawalt v. Natrona I. Co., 16 Wyo., 226, 92 Pac. Rep. 1008. 279 TRIAL AND PRACTICE. se 374. 375 874. Same. Right to intervene. Additional matter to foot-note 23. 21 875. Jury trial. Additional matter to foot-note 24. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 25. 23 Additional matter to foot-note 26. 24 21 Colorado. Bringing in other parties: See Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 572. 22 Instructions: California. As to changes in plans and delay in completion: See Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 42, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. As to sequence of Injury and breach: Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los An- geles G. & E. Co., supra. As to extending time to complete contract because of delay and changes made: See Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., supra. Colorado. As to additional time for performance equal to delay caused by owner: See Idaho G. C. M. & M. Co. v. Colorado I. W. Co. (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 553. As to allowance of interest: See Idaho G. C. M. & M. Co. v. Colorado I. W. Co., supra. As to performance of contract: See Idaho G. C. M. & M. Co. v. Colorado I. W. Co., supra. Montana. As to waiver of certificate: See Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 673. As to construction of contract: Piper v. Murray, supra. New Mexico. As to items in cost of construction: See Neher v. Vivian! (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 697. Utah. As to completion of dam: See Ryan v. Curlew I. & R. Co. (Utah), 104 Pac. Rep. 218, 222. As to contract for digging well: See Prye v. Kelbaugh, 34 Utah 306, 97 Pac. Rep. 331, 333. Washington. As to rescission of written contract: See Evans v. Oregon & W. R. Co., 58 Wash. 429, 108 Pac. Rep. 1095, 1097. Instructions generally: Kansas. See Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1005. Montana. Piper v. Murray (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 669, 673. Utah. See Ryan v. Curlew I. & R. Co. (Utah), 104 Pac. Rep. 218, 222. Jury trial? Special issue: See Burke v. Dittus, 8 Cal. App. 175, 176, 96 Pac. Rep. 330. 23 California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. Oklahoma. But see Jones v. Balsley (Okl.), Ill Pac. Rep. 942; s. c., 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830. Oregon. Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533 Washington. Pacific I. & S. Works v. Goerig, 55 Wash. 149, 104 Pac. Rep. 151. 24 California. See Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. Colorado. Hottel v. Poudre Valley R. Co., 41 Colo. 370, 92 Pac. Rep. 918, 919. 876-882 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 280 876. Same. Verdict. Setting aside verdict. Additional matter to foot-note 27. 23 877. New trial. Additional matter to foot-note 28. 20 si 878. Nonsuit.- 7 When sustained upon appeal. 879. Same. When not granted. Additional matter to foot-note 30. 28 880. Same. Statute of limitations. 20 881. Same. Time of filing claim.-' 10 882. Same. Excessive claim. Forfeiture. Additional matter to foot-note 34. 31 Idaho. Naylor & Norlin v. Lewlston & S. E. E. Ry. Co.. 14 Idaho 722. 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 828, 96 Pac. Rep. 573. 25 California. Compare Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 490, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. ze New Trial : California. See Dahlberg v. Girsch, 157 Cal. 324, 326, 107 Pac. Rep. 616; Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664. Idaho. See Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nlckerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24. 27. Montana. See Hamilton v. Monidah Trust, 39 Mont. 269, 102 Pac. Rep. 335. Oregon. On appeal* See Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.) , 110 Pac. Rep. 533. Washington. See Shaw v. Spencer, 57 Wash. 587, 107 Pac. Rep. 383; Mortimer v. Dirks. 57 Wash. 402, 107 Pac. Rep. 184, 186. Wyoming. See Qreenawalt v. Natrona I. Co., 16 Wyo. 226, 92 Pac. Rep. 1008. Notice of Intention : Idaho. See Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 95 Pac. Rep. 827. Montana. See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353. 27 Nonault I \\iisiilnnt4.ii. See Evans v. Oregon & W. R. Co., 58 Wash. 429. 108 Pac. Rep. 1095. 28 California. See Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664. 667. 29 See 649, this Supplement, ante. so See 55 422 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 31 Nonsuit: 281 TRIAL AND PRACTICE. 88 33 4 883. Same. Admission in answer. Contract. Additional matter to foot-note 35. 32 884. Same. Common counts. 33 Express contract. California. See San Pedro L. Co. v. Schroeter, 156 Cal. 158, 160, 103 Pac. Rep. 888. 32 Nonsuit: California. See Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 611, 612, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. 33 See 673, this Supplement, ante. 885,886 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 282 CHAPTER XLI. FINDINGS. !j 885. Findings. Scope of chapter. The object of plead- ings is to arrive at the issue or issues on which the cause of action or defense thereof depends. The object of findings is to determine such issue or issues. Findings should be so construed as to support the judgment when it can be done. If apparently inconsistent, they should be reconciled, if rea- sonably possible to do so. If upon an immaterial issue, they should be disregarded. If, taking them as a whole, they fairly dispose of the material issues raised by the pleadings on which evidence was offered, the judgment will be upheld. 1 Additional matter to foot-note I. 2 886. Issues to be found upon. A finding that all of the allegations of the complaint are true is sufficient, as such finding negatives the denial of the answer as to the allega- tion of the complaint; 3 but a general omnibus finding, "that 1 California. Needham v. Chandler, 8 Cal. App. 124, 128, 96 Pac. Rep. 325. 2 Presumption* In favor of finding;* on appeal: See {976 and 980, this Supplement, post. California. Re-trial: Adoption of former findings after appeal: See Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760; s. c.. 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Evidence of acquiescence in delay held to support findings: See Slrch E. & T. L. v. Garbutt, 13 Cal. App. 435, 110 Pac. Rep. 140. Idaho. Amount of damage for malperformunce: See Steltz v. Ar- mory Co., 15 Idaho 551, 99 Pac. Rep. 98, 101. Washington. One cannot attack flndlngn reqneMted by him: Jensen v. Sheard, 49 Wash. 593, 96 Pac. Rep. 2. On trial de novo In Appellate Court, findings of lower court given due weight, but evidence reviewed: Pacific L. & T. Co. v. Dailey (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869, 870. AH to breach of contract for grading work: See Pinickneff v. John- son, 54 Wash. 156, 102 Pac. Rep. 1047. A to modification of contract: See Jones v. Nelson (Wash.). 112 Pac. Rep. 88. 3 California. Needham v. Chandler, 8 Cal. App. 124, 128, 96 Pac. Rep. 325. 283 FINDINGS. 886-888 all the material denials and averments of the answer to the complaint herein are true, and all the material averments of the amended complaint in intervention are true," is insuf- ficient for any purpose. 4 If the effect of an affirmative alle- gation with regards to performance of the contract following and in connection with a denial is but to emphasize the denial of the answer, it is not necessary that there should be a find- ing on such affirmative allegation. 5 If an issue is joined as to priority of liens, the issue should be found upon by the court. Additional matter to foot-note 3. 6 Additional matter to foot-note 8. 7 Additional matter to foot-note 9. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 10. 9 887. Finding to cover entire issue. It seems that a mere finding as to the incorrectness of the description in a claim of lien is not equivalent to a finding that such incorrect description fails to properly identify the property. 10 Additional matter to foot-note II. 11 888. Same. Defective findings. It is not necessary that there should be a correct finding with reference to the amount remaining unpaid in the hands of the owner from the 35-day payment, under the statutory original contract as it 4 California. Holt Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 273, 97 Pac. Rep. 516. 5 California. Needham v. Chandler, 8 Cal. App. 124, 128, 96 Pac. Rep. 325. e Calif ornia. Abandonment: See Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 118, 97 Pac. Rep. 152. See Western L. & M. Co. v. Merchants' A. Co., 13 Cal. App. 4, 108 Pac. Rep. 891, 894. Colorado. But see Ross M. & M. Co. v. Sethman (Colo.), 114 Pac. Rep. 287. 7 Colorado. See Ross M. & M. Co. v. Sethman (Colo.), 114 Pac. Rep. 287. 8 Utah. See Midgley v. Campbell B. Co. (Utah), 112 Pac. Rep. 820. 9 California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514. 520, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 10 California. Patten & Davies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 25. 98 Pac. Rep. 37, 38. (Dictum.) 11 California. See Coplew v. Durand, 153 Cal. 278, 281, 95 Pac. Rep. 38. Idaho. See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 796, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. gg 888-890 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 284 existed in California before the amendment of 1911, where the payment was in excess of the claim, and the findings were otherwise supported by the evidence. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 16. 13 889. Ultimate facts to be found. Where the notice of completion is prematurely filed by the owner before actual completion or substantial completion, and the owner and claimant regard the work as not completed, a finding that after completion no notice of completion was filed will be sustained. 14 Additional matter to foot-note 17. 15 Additional matter to foot-note 19. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 20. 17 S 890. Immaterial issues. Where there is no issue raised that the description of the property in the claim of lien is insufficient for identification, there need be no findings made thereon. 18 In determining the rights of claimants under a contractor who abandons his valid contract the court need not find the reasonable cost of completing the building, as such issue is not material, the ultimate fact being the value of the work done by the contractor measured by the rule of the statute. 19 12 California. Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 229. 233, 101 Pac. Rep. 691. 13 California. AM to deitcrlptlons See Patten & Da vies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 98 Pac. Rep. 37, 38. 14 California. Otis E. Co. v. Brainerd, 10 Cal. App. 229, 232. 101 Pac. Rep. 691. is California. C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138. 97 Pac. Rep. 155. Am to finding upon evidence of title or ownermhlpt See Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 157 Cal. 510, 105 Pac. Rep. 981, 986. Finding- of KIIIII "due and owlnRV' implying that it was unpaid: See Treis v. Berlin D. W. & L. Co., 10 Cal. App. 623, 105 Pac. Rep. 275, 276. 16 California. ' An to material* lined, except xninll Item*: See Lucas v. Oobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157. IT California. See Western L. & M. Co. v. Merchants' A. Co., 13 Cal. App. 4. 108 Pac. Rep. 891, 894. is California. Patten & Davies L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 25, 98 Pac. Rep. 37. 38. 10 California. C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. 285 FINDINGS. 890-895 Additional matter to foot-note 25. 20 Additional matter to foot-note 31. 21 891. Same. Knowledge of owner. Notice of non-re- sponsibility. Where a finding as to the knowledge of the owner is susceptible of a construction that he had knowledge during the progress of the work, and if the evidence supports such finding, thus construed, a judgment requiring such find- ing to support it will be sustained. 22 892. Segregating items of contract price. Additional matter to foot-note 34. 23 893. Contradictory findings. A finding of a promise to pay under one count, and also of the reasonable value under another count, are not so inconsistent as to warrant a re- versal. 24 A finding that the contractor did not file the stat- utory original contract, and that if there was any failure to complete the contract in any respect, it was due entirely to the failure of the owner to furnish necessary materials, is un- certain and contradictory. 25 894. Findings in consolidated action. Additional matter to foot-note 38. 2G 895. Findings of fact and conclusions of law. Additional matter to foot-note 39. -~ 20 California. Robison v. Mitchell (Gal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 989. 21 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520, 97 Pac. Rep, 414, 420. 22 California. Pacific L. Co. v. Wilson, 6 Cal. App. 561, 562, 92 Pac. Rep. 654. 23 Idaho. See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 798, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. 24 California. Barber A. P. Co. v. Santa Barbara I. Co., 13 Cal. App. 597, 110 Pac. Rep. 463. 25 California. Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 238, 107 Pac. Rep. 150. \\asliiiinlon. In consolidated action: See Ferdig v. Simpson, 47 Wash. 475, 92 Pac. Rep. 370. 27 California. See Treis v. Berlin D. W. & L. Co., 10 Cal. App. 623, 105 Pac. Rep. 275, 276. Utah. See Foulger v. McGrath, 34 Utah 86, 95 Pac. Rep. 1004, 1007. 81896-902 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 286 896. Same. Void contract. Additional matter to foot-note 41. 28 i 897. Finding's sufficient to support judgment. Additional matter to foot-note 42. 20 898. Agency. 30 899. Same. Insufficient finding. 900. Same. Request of owner. Additional matter to foot-note 48. 31 901. Same. Void contract. 32 902. When findings may not be attacked. 33 28 California. See Western L. & M. Co. v. Merchants' A. Co., 13 Cal. App. 4, 108 Pac. Rep. 891, 894. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by amendment of May 1, 1911, to S 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See 8 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. 29 California. See, generally. Barber A. P. Co. v. Santa Barbara I. Co., 13 Cal. App. 597, 110 Pac. Rep. 463; Stimson M. Co. v. Hughes Mfg. Co., 5 Cal. App. 559, 97 Pac. Rep. 322, 323; Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 653, 103 Pac. Rep. 157; Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern R. Co., 158 Cal. 264, 110 Pac. Rep. 951, 953. so See "Agency," $572 et seq.. this Supplement, ante, si California. Owner acting tbroiiKh agent t See Western L. & M. Co. v. Merchants' A. Co., 13 Cal. App. 4, 108 Pac. Rep. 891. 32 California. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See H 258, 268, 274, 281, 288, and 328, this Supplement, ante. 33 See "Appeal," 980 et seq., this Supplement, post. 287 DECREE. o 903 CHAPTER XLII. DECREE. 903. General nature of decree foreclosing liens. Where neither the owner nor contractor raises any objection to the disposition of the balance of the fund, an order or judgment that the balance be paid to claimants who have not estab- lished their lien is too favorable to them, and they cannot be heard to object to such order on appeal nor to attack the judgment giving a lien to those who have established the same. 1 When the statutory original contract is void and the lien is direct, the court may properly deny the owner's demand for an accounting and apportionment of the amount due among the several claimants. 2 Additional matter to foot-note I. 3 Additional matter to foot note 2. 4 1 California. Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 155 Cal. 411, 414, 101 Pac. Rep. 307. 2 California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 666. 3 Idaho. Judgment foreclosing mechanics' lien is not a money judgment within the meaning of 4, 810 Rev. Stats, of 1887, corre- sponding to 942, Code Civ. Proc. of California: Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 828, 96 Pac. Rep. 573. Kansas. Action to foreclose cannot be summarily dismissed on mo- tion of person not party to the action: Deatherage L. Co. v. Miles (Kan.), 116 Pac. Rep. 505. Washington. Judgment for provisional lien against the property of the owner for a certain sum, conditioned upon the payment of that amount into the registry of the court within a certain time after rendition of the judgment: See Hughes & Co. v. Flint (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 633. Judgment against surety in action to foreclose lien: See Kalb- Gilbert L. Co. v. Cram (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 1050; s. c., 57 Wash. 550. 107 Pac. Rep. 381. Judgment quieting title protecting lien for improvements: See Palmer v. Abrahams, 55 Wash. 352, 104 Pac. Rep. 648. 4 Colorado. Barnes v. Colorado Springs & C. C. D. Ry. Co., 42 Colo. 461, 94 Pac. Rep. 570, 573. Oklahoma. Judgment in favor of subcontractor's employee can- not be rendered, if the court does not acquire jurisdiction of his person: Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 92 Pac. Rep. 542, 547. 903-907 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 288 Additional matter to foot-note 3. 5 904. Effect of decree on third persons. Additional matter to foot-note 5. 6 905. Consolidated action. Where actions of sub-lien claimants to foreclose liens against the owner and the original contract are properly consolidated under the statute and the liens fail, a single personal judgment against the original contractor may be entered." 906. Kind of money in which judgment is to be satisfied. 907. Interest. The fact that appellants who claimed under a deed of trust were not parties to any of the claim* sued upon, and that they were contracted without their knowledge, does not affect the right of lien holders to inter- est, where the appellants claimed under a person who in- curred the liability and under an instrument executed after the liability had become a lien against the property, and consequently have only the rights in the property which the owner had when the deed of trust was executed. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 9. 9 5 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 463, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. See S 907, this Supplement, post. California. See Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 273, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. Am to effect of decree foreclosing street assessment Hen: See Los Angeles County v. Wlnans, 13 Cal. App. 234, 109 Pac. Rep. 640, 650. Direct and collateral attack upon decree of foreclosure and pre- sumptions regarding jurisdiction: See Western L. & M. Co. v. Mer- chants' A. Co.. 13 Cal. App. 4, 108 Pac. Rep. 891. See Lemon v. Hub- bard, 10 Cal. App. 471, 475. 102 Pac. Rep. 554. i i.-iii. As to atibsequent creditor*: See Park City M. Co. v. Corn- stock S. M. Co., Utah, 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 258. Washington. Compare Kalb-Gllbert L. Co. v. Cram (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 1050; s. c., 57 Wash. 550, 107 Pac. Rep. 381. 7 California. Nordstrom v. Corona City W. Co., 155 Cal. 206, 210, 100 Pac. Rep. 242. s California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 273, 96 Pac. Rep. 788. 9 California. Burnett v. Glas. 154 Cal. 249, 259, 260. 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. 289 DECREE. 907-915 Additional matter to foot-note 10. 10 908. Same. Contractor. Additional matter to foot-note 13. n 909. Same. Unliquidated demands. Additional matter to foot-note 14. 12 910. Same. Interest of subcontractor's claimants, charge against subcontractor. 13 911. Same. Valid contract. Payment of fund into court by owner. 14 912. Default. Modification of judgment. 15 913. Default judgment against owner. 15 914. Personal judgment. When not required. 16 915. Same. When obtained. Additional matter to foot-note 26. 17 Colorado. See Idaho C. C. & M. Co. v. Colorado I. W. Co. (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 535, 555. Washington. Interest properly allowable from the date when the lien notice is filed: Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. 10 California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 259, 260, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. 11 Washington. See Jones v. Nelson (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 88. 12 California. Coghlan v. Quartararo (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664, 667; Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 260, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. is See "Subcontractor," 66 et seq., this Supplement, post. 14 See "Deposit," 871, this Supplement, ante. is See 657, this Supplement, ante. 16 See 662 et seq., this Supplement, ante. IT California. Nordstrom v. Corona City W. Co., 155 Cal. 206, 100 Pac. Rep. 242. Colorado. See Hottel v. Poudre Valley R. Co., 41 Colo. 370, 92 Pac. Rep. 918, 921 (owner entitled to judgment against contractor for excess payment of liens above amount due contractor). Idaho. Valley L. &. Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. Rep. 24, 27. Oklahoma. Alberti v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 546. Bloom's Sup. 19 | 915-920 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. _>!><) Additional matter to foot-note 27. 18 916. Same. Purchaser of property assuming debt. 917. Same. Notice to owner to withhold payments. Additional matter to foot-note 32. 19 918. Same. Subclaimant against contractor. Default. Additional matter to foot-note 33. 20 919. Same. When not given. Additional matter to foot-note 34. 21 Additional matter to foot-note 35. 22 Additional matter to foot-note 36. 23 920. Same. Death of owner. Recovery against estate. Additional matter to foot-note 37.-' is WanlilnKton. Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto, 53 Wash. 231, 102 Pac. Rep. 766, 101 Pac. Rep. 869. 10 California. See Hubbard v. Lee, 10 Cal. App. 477, 478, 102 Pac. Rep. 528; s. c., 6 Cal. App. 602, 92 Pac. Rep. 744. 20 \\ .-i-.il i M- ( ..ii. No recovery agalnnt contractor on general ac- counts without issues framed: Hughes & Co. v. Flint (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 633, 635. 21 Arizona. Harper v. Independence D. Co. (Ariz.), 108 Pac. Rep. 701. California. Merced L. Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 375, 92 Pac. Rep. 844. See Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, 506, 97 Pac. Rep. 216; s. c., 8 Cal. App. 512, 97 Pac. Rep. 218. KniisiiM. See Robert Garrett L. Co. v. Loftus, 82 Kan. 556. T09 Pac. Rep. 179. 180, 181. Oklahoma. See Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 547. l' i nh. Volker-Scowcroft L. Co. v. Vance (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 970; s. c., 32 Utah 74, 88 Pac. Rep. 896. \YiiMliinKton. Shaw v. Spencer, 57 Wash. 587, 107 Pac. Rep. 383. 22 California. Merced L. Co. v. Bruschi, 152 Cal. 372, 375, 92 Pac. Rep. 844. 23 Oklahoma. Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543, 546. 24 California. See in re Hincheon's Estate (Cal. Sup.), 116 Pac. Rep. 47. Oregon. Brown v. Truax (Oreg.), 115 Pac. Rep. 597. South Dakota. See Fish v. De Laray, 8 So. Dak. 320, 66 N. W. Rep. 465. Waiihlngrton. See Casey v. Ault, 4 Wash. 167, 29 Pac. Rep. 1048. 291 DECREE. 921-926 921. Same. Jurisdiction of superior court to render personal judgment in suit to foreclose lien. Additional matter to foot-no.te 38. 25 922. Deficiency judgment. Additional matter to foot-note 39. 26 Additional matter to foot-note 40. 27 923. Same. Notice to owner to withhold payments. 28 924. Same. Judgment for gross amount. 925. Same. Form of judgment. 926. Prior mortgage. Decree of sale. The court fore- closing mechanics' liens may decree the payment of a mortgage debt if it is not due, where some of the me- chanics' lien are prior thereto and some subsequent thereto; but if all of the liens are prior to the mortgage or all are subsequent thereto, or if there are some prior and some subsequent and all of either class are paid off, it is error for the court to enter a decree having the effect of maturing the unmatured mortgage debt, and no provision should be made in the decree for the payment of the mortgage ; as, in the case of prior mechanics' liens, the mortgagee would have to re- deem from the lien sale to preserve his claim, and in the case of a prior mortgage, the property would be sold subject thereto. 29 25 Washington. See Pacific I. & S. Works v. Goerig, 55 Wash. 149, 104 Pac. Rep. 151. 26 California. See Danaldson v. Orchard C. O. Co., 6 Cal. App. 641, 92 Pac. Rep. 1046. 27 Idaho. See Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 25 Pac. Rep. 827, 96 Pac. Rep. 573. 28 See 547 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 29 Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 766; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. See this case in its various stages, with regard to this question. 927-934 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 292 927. Interests in land. When can be ordered sold. Additional matter to foot-note 50. 30 928. Recitals in decree. Foreclosure of interest. 31 929. Same. Ownership. Knowledge. 32 930. Extent of lien. Statutory provision. 33 931. Same. Necessity of designating property to be sold. Additional matter to foot-note 55. 34 932. Same. Effect of failure to define extent of land. Additional matter to foot-note 56. 35 933. Same. Order directing sale of entire building. Additional matter to foot-note 57. 36 934. Same. Land necessary for convenient use and oc- cupation. Additional matter to foot-note 58. 37 so California. See Danaldson v. Orchard C. O. Co., 6 Cat. App. 641, 92 Pac. Rep. 1046. Utah. Sale carrying with It certain eanementMt Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 261. \\ :i-liinuum. Am to leasehold IntercMtMi See Cornelius v. Wash- ington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. si See "Extent of Hen," f{ 459 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 32 See J 469 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 33 See 11195, Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Am. its. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). 34 California. See Patten & Davles L. Co. v. Gibson, 9 Cal. App. 23, 25, 98 Pac. Rep. 37, 38. Compare Chapman v. Zobelein, 152 Cal. 216, 92 Pac. Rep. 188. Utah. A* to mining claim t See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 261. 35 Washington. See Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. 38 Utah. See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. 37 New Mexico. AM to mining claim t See Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec O. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 706, 710. Utah. An to mining claim i See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. Rep. 254, 259. 293 COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. SS 935.939 CHAPTER XLIII. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. 935. Costs and attorneys' fees. Statutory provision. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 936. Costs. Preparing, filing, and recording claim of lien. Additional matter to foot-note 7. 2 937. Same. Recovery by owner. Where no claim is made in the complaint in an action upon the contractor's bond to recover attorneys' fees necessarily paid by the owner, such costs cannot be covered. 3 938. Same. Recovery of costs against owner. Pro- longing litigation. Additional matter to foot-note 10. 4 939. Same. Owner may set off costs and interests against contractor, when. Allowance of attorneys' fees on 1 California. Costs on appeal; not allowed against certain respond- ents where judgment is modified on appeal: See Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 261, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c., sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856. Apportionment of costs between appellant and respondents: See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 524, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Idaho. Mileage and per diem allowed for attendance of subcon- tractors, not parties, but interested: See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 799, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Oregon. Costs on appeal: See Litherland v. S. Morton' Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 1, 102 Pac. Rep. 303, 100 Pac. Rep. 1. Washington. As to costs: See Jensen v. Sheard, 49 Wash. 593, 96 Pac. Rep. 2. As to Attorney's fees: See Rieflin v. Grafton (Wash.), 115 Pac. Rep. 851, 853. 2 Montana. Neuman v. Grant, 36 Mont. 77, 92 Pac. Rep. 43. 3 California. Klokke v. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 6, 96 Pac. Rep. 392. 4 California. See Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 523, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. 939 940 MECHANICS 1 LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 294 foreclosure of mechanics' liens where statute has been held unconstitutional is error, and will be stricken from the judg- ment. 5 And a direction that the same be paid from the fund deposited in court is void, and the owner is entitled to have the judgment allowing the same modified. 6 Additional matter to foot-note II. 7 940. Attorneys' fees. Unconstitutionality of provision. Additional matter to foot-note 16. 8 Additional matter to foot-note 18. 9 5 California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los Angeles P. B. & D. Co.. 7 Cal. App. 460, 464, 94 Pac. Rep. 775. a California. Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. iliggins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 520. 7 California. Recovery by owner against contractor's surety for attorneys' fees where fund was exhausted by payment to Hen claim- ants: Klokke v. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 5, 96 Pac. Rep. 392, distin- guishing Burnett v. Glas, 97 Pac. Rep. 423 (154 Cal. 249). See Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co., 58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024, 1027. 8 California. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 260, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; s. c. f sub nom. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856: Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 274. 96 Pac. Rep. 788. See Holt Mfg. Co. v. Collins, 154 Cal. 265, 268, 97 Pac. Rep. 516 (threshing machine), and Engebretson v. Gay, 158 Cal. 30, 109 Pac. Rep. 880; s. c., 158 Cal. 27, 109 Pac. Rep. 879; s. c., sub nom. Gay v. Engebretson, 158 Cal. 21, 109 Pac. Rep. 877. Idaho. Provision for attorneys' fee not unconstitutional because not providing allowance for opposite party: Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 799, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. New Mexico. Constitutionality of provision for attorneys' fees reaffirmed: Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 03, 605. Oklahoma. Provision for the allowance of attorneys' fees uncon- stitutional as violating xiv Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as not giving the defendant the equal protection of the laws: Chicago R. I. & T. Ry. Co. v. Mashore, 21 Okl. 275, 96 Pac. Rep. 630, 633. California. Farnham v. California S. D. & T. Co., 8 Cal. App. 266, 274, 96 Pac. Rep. 788; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 522, 523, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420; Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Los An- geles P. B. & D. Co., 7 Cal. App. 460, 464. 94 Pac. Rep. 775; Barrett- Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 861; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423; H. Raphael Co. v. Grote, 154 Cal. 137, 138. 97 Pac. Rep. 155; Pacific L. Co. v. Wilson, 6 Cal. App. 561, 563. 92 Pac. Rep. 654; Danaldson v. Orchard C. O. Co., 6 Cal. App. 641, 645, 92 Pac. Rep. 1046; Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 613, 95 Pac. Rep. 382; Hartwell v. Ganahl L. Co., 8 Cal. App. 733, 737, 97 Pac. Rep. 901. 295 COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. SS 941.943 941. Same. Attorneys' fees not allowed, except on foreclosure of liens on property. Additional matter to foot-note 20. 10 942. Same. Nature of attorneys' fees allowed, and their relation to costs. Additional matter to foot-note 22. n Additional matter to foot-note 23. 12 Additional matter to foot-note 24. 13 943. Same. Measure of attorneys' fees. Elements for determination. Magnitude of the case, peculiar character of the contract under which the plaintiff was operating, nature of the work and the obstacles with which he met in attempt- ing to recover under the contract, and the obstinacy with which the case was contested, are elements to be considered by the court in determining what are reasonable attorneys' fees, when they are allowable. 14 Additional matter to foot-note 25. 15 10 Idaho. Attorneys' fees: See, generally, Naylor & Norlin v. Lew- iston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 828, 96 Pac. Rep. 573. 11 Idaho. Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. 12 Washington. Attorneys' fees allowed In judgment and subse- quently taxed as costs; no error where amount taxed as costs re- mitted: Ferdig v. Simpson, 47 Wash. 475, 92 Pac. Rep. 370. is Idaho. Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. 14 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 799, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. is California. Under heading "reasonable attorneys' fees," strike out in citation of Castagnetto v. Coppertown M. & S. Co., 146 Cal. 329, 334, 80 Pac. Rep. 74, the word "cents" after "seventy-five," and insert "dollars." Attorneys' fees: Idaho. Amount recovered, $3124.70; attorneys' fees, $250: Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 96 Pac. Rep. 573. Amount recovered, $46.50; attorneys' fees, $50: Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 Pac. Rep. 399. Amount recovered, $162,211.26; attorneys' fees, $10,000 (held reasonable): Nelson Ben- nett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 799, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Montana. See Mylntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 355. New Mexico. Amount recovered, $3,251.36; attorneys' fees, $250: Baldridge V. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 342. See Steams-Roger Mfg. Co. v. Aztec G. M. & M. Co., 14 N. M. 300, 93 Pac. Rep. 906, 913. 943-946 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 296 Additional matter to foot-note 27. 10 Additional matter to foot-note 29. 17 944. Same. Relation of legal services to action. Additional matter to foot-note 30. 18 945. Same. Agreement as to fees. Additional matter to foot-note 34. 19 946. Same. Lower court fixing attorneys' fees in su- preme court. 20 Oklahoma. Action for recovery of attorneys' fees, $300, In a num- ber of mechanics' lien suits: See Mellon v. Fulton, 22 Okl. 636, 98 Pac. Rep. 911. 914. Oregon. Amount recovered, $2,579.70; attorneys' fees, $250 (upon uncontradicted proof of reasonable allowance increased from $200, upon appeal): Mclnnis v. Buchanan, 53 Oreg. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 929, 932. Washington. Amount recovered. $129.58; attorneys' fees, $25: Popl- ella v. Zolawenskl, 51 Wash. 39, 97 Pac. Rep. 972. Amount recovered, $655.20; attorneys' fees, $100: Helmer v. Title G. & S. Co., 50 Wash. 411, 97 Pac. Rep. 451. Amount recovered, $31.75; attorneys' fees, $25: Olson v. Goodsell, 56 Wash. 251, 105 Pac. Rep. 463. Amount recovered, $740; attorney's fees, $100: Williams v. Lewis N. Rosenbaum Co., 57 Wash. 94, 106 Pac. Rep. 493. Amount recovered, $1,420.86; attor- neys' fees, $200: Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 728. Amount of total liens, $5,714.35: attorneys' fees, $1,000: Sheard v. United States F. & G. Co., 58 Wash. 29, 107 Pac. Rep. 1024, 1026 (appeals). Amount recovered, $340.37; attorneys' fees, $150 (stipulation that court fix fees): Housekeeper v. Livingstone, 48 Wash. 209, 93 Pac. Rep. 217, 218. See { 945, this Supplement, post. ie Idaho. The fact that the claimant recovers less than one hun- dred dollars in the lower court is immaterial, so far as attorneys' fees are concerned, as attorneys' fees are recoverable even if the amount of the Judgment is less than one hundred dollars; and the attorneys' fees are a part of the recovery and a lien upon the property: Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, .107 Pac. Rep. 399. IT Oregon. Where the claimant proves by uncontradicted testi- mony that a certain amount is a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees on foreclosure of the lien, he may recover the amount so proved: Mclnnis v. Buchanan, 53 Oreg. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 929, 932. is Montana. Neuman v. Grant, 36 Mont. 77, 92 Pac. Rep. 43 (also for abstract of title). 10 Washington. Where court fixes attorneys' fees, without evidence, according to stipulation, appellate court can not say that there was an abuse' of discretion, In the absence of any evidence upon the sub- ject: Housekeeper v. Livingstone, 48 Wash. 217, 218. 20 See |991, this Supplement, post. 297 COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. X 947 947. Same. When owner not liable for attorneys' fees. Additional matter to foot-note 37. 21 21 New Mexico. But see Baldridge v. Morgan (N. M.), 106 Pac. Rep. 342, 344. 948-950 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 298 CHAPTER XLIV. SALE AND REDEMPTION. 948. Sale. In general. Additional matter to foot-note I. 1 949. Same. Manner of executing judgment. Execu- tion as to personal judgment against the original contractor may be levied on all debts owing from the owner to the original contractor; and where the original contractor ob- tains judgment against the owner, such judgment may be levied upon by subclaimants who fail to establish their liens and obtain only personal judgments against the original contractor. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 4. 3 950. Same. ' ' Writ ' ' not an ' ' execution. ' ' Additional matter to foot-note 7. 4 1 California. \- to sale on foreclosure of mortgage void sale sale en masse: See Bechtel v. Wier, 152 Cal. 443, 93 Pac. Rep. 75. Defective certificate of nle, on foreclosure of mortgage: Driscoll v. Hershey. 7 Cal. App. 738, 95 Pac. Rep. 1040. \<-\i Mexico. I ii junction agalnnt nalet See Robertson v. Mine & S. S. Co. (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 1037. Oklahoma. See Albert! v. Moore, 20 Okl. 78, 93 Pac. Rep. 543. 547. Oregon. See Washburn v. Intermountain M. Co. (Oreg.), 109 Pac. Rep. 382, 386. Utah. Description of land In order of aalet See Park City M. Co. v. Comstock S. M. Co. (Utah), 103 Pac. 254, 261. 2 California. Nordstrom v. Corona City W. Co., 155 Cal. 206, 100 Pac. Rep. 242. 3 Idaho. iMMiinnoe of execution under section 4475, Rev. Codes, in case of death of the judgment debtor, applied in action to foreclose defendant's lien: Rose v. Dunbar (Idaho), 115 Pac. Rep. 920. Idaho. Deficiency judgment; execution and return of sale: See Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 96 Pac. Rep. 573. 4 California. Proceeding* npplenientary to execution on behalf of sublien claimants against lienor for indebtedness to the original con- tractor: See Nordstrom v. Corona City W. Co., 155 Cal. 206, 209, 100 Pac. Rep. 242. 299 SALE AND REDEMPTION. 82 951-955 951. Same. Time of sale. Additional matter to foot-note 9. 3 952. Same. Application of proceeds to junior execu- tions. Additional matter to foot-note II. 6 Additional matter to foot-note 12." 953. Same. Sale of leasehold interest. Additional matter to foot-note 14. 8 954. Right of redemption. Additional matter to foot-note 16. 955. Same. Redemption by subsequent mortgagee not made a party. Additional matter to foot-note 17. 10 5 Colorado. See, generally, La Fitte v. Salisbury, 43 Colo. 348, 95 Pac. Rep. 1065. Idaho. As to return: See Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 96 Pac. Rep. 573. 6 California. Compare Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 861; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 7 Washington. Purchaser at foreclosure of mechanic's lien takes property cum onere: Cornelius v. Washington S. L., 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. s Idaho. Sale of rights of construction company of canal to re- claim land under Carey Act: See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 792, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Possessory title to mining claim: Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., supra. Montana. Sale of structure on mine, after sale of undivided inter- ests in mining claim and insufficient proceeds: See Mclntyre v. Mon- tana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353, 357. Oklahoma. Sale of interest of lessee of school lauds: See Jarrell v. Block 19 Okl. 467, 92 Pac. Rep. 167. o California. Redemption from sale on foreclosure of mortgage: See Bunting v. Haskell, 152 Cal. 426, 93 Pac. Rep. 110. Montana. Right to redeem where mortgagor has conveyed the mortgagee: See Gassert v. Strong, 38 Mont. 18, 98 Pac. Rep. 497, 503. 10 Colorado. Action by minority stockholders to enjoin sale under execution when officers refuse to perform duty to redeem: See Paxton v. Heron, 41 Colo. 147, 92 Pac. Rep. 15. $ 956, 957 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 3QQ ' CHAPTER XLV. APPEAL. 956. Appeal. In general. Statutory provisions. An action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, being a suit in equity, under 4, of Article VI of the constitution of California, must be appealed directly to the Supreme Court; and where the owner deposits the balance due into the lower court to be distributed to the lien holders according to the judgment of the court, it is a proceeding calling for equitable relief, and the case will be transferred from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court for hearing. 1 Additional matter to foot-note I. 2 957. Error, how reviewed. Exclusion of evidence. In an action to foreclose mechanics' liens, objections as to the amount of the judgment cannot be reviewed upon an appeal from an order denying a motion for new trial. 3 Additional matter to foot-note 7. 4 1 California. Stockton L. Co. v. Schuler, 7 Cal. App. 257, 94 Pac. Rep. 399. 2 I :i\\ Of the i-.'l-i-: California: See Hubbard v. Lee, 10 Cal. App. 477, 480, 102 Pac. Rep. 528; s. c., 6 Cal. App. 602, 92 Pac. Rep. 744. New Mexico. See Cowles v. Hagerman (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 843, 844; s. c., Hagerman v. Cowles, 14 N. M. 422, 94 Pac. Rep. 946. I\:IIISIIM. Jurisdiction of Appellate Court as to amount In contro- versy: See Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Well, 80 Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1004. Montana. Review mm to credit* to be allowed owner: See Mills v. Olsen (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 33, 35. \\ :i-iiiiiui..n. Appeal not allowed on mere question of costs: Jensen v. Sheard, 49 Wash. 593, 96 Pac. Rep. 2. Kqulty milt to foreclose lien heard de novo In Supreme Court: Jones V. Nelson (Wash.), 112 Pac. Rep. 88, 89; Pacific L. & T. Co. v. Dalley (Wash.), Ill Pac. Rep. 869, 870. Case tried on theory of authority of agent not viewed otherwise on appeal: Driver v. Galland, 58 Wash. 62, 109 Pac. Rep. 593, 595. 3 California. Rockwell v. Light, 6 Cal. App. 563, 566, 92 Pac. Rep. 649. 4 California. BUI of exceptions, requisites i See Coghlan v. Quar- tararo, (Cal. App.), 115 Pac. Rep. 664. 301 APPEAL. 958-964 958. Same. Writ of review. Additional matter to foot-note 8. 5 959. Parties to appeal. Additional matter to foot-note 10. 6 960. Same. Definition of adverse party. Additional matter to foot-note II. 11 961. Same. Appeal from judgment denying lien. Death of one personally liable. 12 962. Notice of appeal. 13 Contents. Sale of property. 963. Same. Personal judgment against contractor. 14 964. Same. Upon whom served. 13 . $ Additional matter to foot-note 17. 16 Colorado. Appellate Court trill not entertain error at instance of trustee in bankruptcy for voluntary payment of mechanic's lien judgment: See Hawthorne v. Hendrie & Bolthoff Mfjg-. & S. Co. (Colo. Sup.), 116 Pac. Rep. 122, 125. 5 Colorado. Question of mere right to lien, whether considered on appeal or on error: See Rice v. Rhone (Colo.), Ill Pac. Rep. 585. 10 California. Compare Danaldson v. Orchard C. O. Co., 6 Cal. App. 641, 92 Pac. Rep. 1046. Oklahoma. See Jones v. Balsley, 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 830, 111 Pac. Rep. 942. Washington. See Exposition A. Co. v. Empire State S. Co., 49 Wash. 637, 97 Pac. Rep. 464, 96 Pac. Rep. 158. 11 California. Compare as to prior mortgage: Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 861; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Idaho. See Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 95 Pac. Rep. 827. 12 See "Parties," 659 et seq., this Supplement, ante. is California. See new and additional method of appeal, 941a, 941b, 941c and 953a, 953b and 953c, Code Civ. Proc. (enacted 1907). i* See preceding note. 15 See note to 952, ante. 16 Idaho. Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 13 Idaho 767, 92 Pac. Rep. 980; s. c., 14 Idaho 5, 98 Pac. Rep. 789. Montana. See Mclntyre v. Montana G. M. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 108 Pac. Rep. 353. Oklahoma. See Jones v. Balsley, 25 Okl. 344, 106 Pac. Rep. 850, 111 Pac. Rep. 942. 965-969 MECHANICS 1 LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 3Q2 965. Same. Contractor not adverse party. 17 966. Same. Contractor adverse party. Default Additional matter to foot-note 20. 1H 967. Same. Subsequent mortgagee. Injuriously af- fected. AVhere a mortgage debt is not yet due and is subse- quent or prior to all the mechanics' liens on the property, and the mortgagee does not appeal, the mortgagors who are defendants in the mechanics '-lien actions on their appeal may object to that part of the decree ordering payment of the mortgaged debt for the reason that the mortgagor might be injured by such decree, as a deficiency judgment might be entered by a premature sale of the land. 10 968. Same. Beneficially affected. The time at which work of construction begins is only material for the purpose of establishing the rank of the lien claimants with reference to mortgages and similar prior liens. And where the mort- gagee does not appeal from the judgment, the mortgagee alone has the right to complain as to the order in which the court directs the mortgagee's lien to be satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale of the property, except lien claim- ants whose liens rank subsequent thereto in the decree. 20 969. Same. Who need not be served with notice of appeal. Additional matter to foot-note 23. 21 IT See note to $962, ante, >. is Idaho. See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 13 Idaho 767, 92 Pac. Rep. 980; s. c., 14 Idaho 5. 93 Pac. Rep. 789. 10 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas (Cal. App.), Ill Pac. Rep. 760, 766; 8. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 956; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 164 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 20 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 861; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 21 Idaho. Likewise as to subcontractors who were made parties defendant in the action to foreclose the lien of the original contractor and who filed no pleadings, no finding: nor judgment being made for or against them: Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 13 Idaho 767, 92 Pac. Rep. 980; s. c., 14 Idaho 5. 93 Pac. Rep. 789. 303 APPEAL. 970-973 970. Same. Service waived by stipulation. 22 971. Bond for costs. Staying judgment. Lien subordi- nate to lien foreclosed. Additional matter to foot-note 28. 23 972. Stay bond. Lien enforced. Additional matter to foot-note 30. 24 973. Insufficient record. 25 Compliance with specifica- tions. Void contract. 26 Additional matter to foot-note 31. 27 22 See note to 952, ante. 23 Montana. Distinction between statutory undertaking and statu- tory bond: See Deer Lodge Co. v. United States F. & G. Co. (Mont.), 112 Pac. Rep. 1060, 1062. 24 See 21 and 952, this Supplement, ante, notes. Idaho. Stay bond: See Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 722, 95 Pac. Rep. 827, 828, 829, 96 Pac. Rep. 573. 25 Insufficient record: California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 861; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. Idaho. Insufficient record: As to disposition of demurred and order overruling motion for new trial: Naylor & Norlin v. Lewiston & S. E. E. Ry. Co., 14 Idaho 789, 96 Pac. Rep. 573, 575, 95 Pac. Rep. 827. Wyoming. Record on appeal: See Greenawalt v. Natrona I. Co., 16 Wyo. 226, 92 Pac. Rep. 1008. 26 California. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by Amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313, et seq.). See 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. 27 California. Beck v. Schmidt, 13 Cal. App. 448, 110 Pac. Rep. 455, 456. Colorado. Long and complicated account should be stated by lower court or referee; otherwise judgment will be affirmed: Stubbs v. Montezuma L. Co., 45 Colo. 219, 100 Pac. Rep. 433; Hottel v. Poudre Valley R. Co., 41 Colo. 370, 92 Pac. Rep. 918, 921. New Mexico. Insufficient record: 1 As to terms, time given and con- ditions of contract; Claim of lien held sufficient on appeal: Gray v. New Mexico P. S. Co., (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 603, 604. Washington. Refusal to review testimony as to amount due and amount of labor and materials furnished: See Cornelius v. Washing- ton S. Laundry, 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. Time of filing proposed statement of fact: See Owen v. Casey. 48 Wash. 673, 94 Pac. Rep. 473. 974-979 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 304 974. Presumptions on appeal.- 8 In general. Additional matter to foot-note 32. 29 975. Same. Extent of land. " 976. Same. Support of findings. Where findings are not attacked by any specification of insufficiency of evidence to support them, such evidence will be presumed to have been introduced. 31 The findings of the trial court are to receive such construction as will uphold rather than de- feat the judgment. 32 Additional matter to foot-note 35. 33 977. Same. For what work amount found due. Additional matter to foot-note 38. 34 978. Same. What not presumed on appeal. 3 -"' $ 979. What not involved. Validity of deficiency judg- ment against contractor. Appeal by owner. 28 Presumptions Montana. Presumption that all contested question* of fact were decided in respondent's favor where appellate court can not ascertain how lower court arrived at amount awarded to claimant: Mills v. Olsen (Mont.), 115 Pac. Rep. 33, 35. Washington. Presumption ait to deposit Into court being uncondi- tional! See Ferdig v. Simpson, 47 Wash. 475, 92 Pac. Rep. 370. 20 Washington. Presumption that there vva* no abuse of discretion! Bellingham v. Llnck, 53 Wash. 208, 101 Pac. Rep. 843, 844. so See 438 et scq., this Supplement, ante. 31 California. Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 612, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. 32 California. Pacific L. Co. v. Wilson, 6 Cal. App. 561, 562, 92 Pac. Rep. 654. 33 California. C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming-, 154 Cal. 138, 143, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. See Hoffman-Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 118, 97 Pac. Rep. 152. Compare Western L. & M. Co. v. Merchants' A. Co., 13 Cal. App. 4, 108 Pac. Rep. 891, 894; Reed v. Harshall, 12 Cal. App. 697, 108 Pac. Rep. 719. Oreieon. Suit to foreclose tried de novoj findings of lower court, If considered at all, are merely advisory: Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533. _ Washington. As to attorneys' fee*: Housekeeper v. Livingstone, 48 Wash. 209, 93 Pac. Rep. 217, 218. 34 See "Findings," f | 885 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 35 Compare "Presumptions," { 974, ante. 305 APPEAL. || 979-981 Additional matter to foot-note 42. 36 980. Findings. When objections not considered. Additional matter to foot-note 43. 37 Additional matter to foot-note 44. 38 Additional matter to foot-note 45. 39 981. Same. On appeal from order denying motion for new trial. 40 36 Colorado. As to failure to request finding;: See Ross M. & M. Co. v. Sethman (Colo.), 114 Pac. Rep. 287. 37 Arizona. Bank of Arizona v. Thomas Haverty Co. (Ariz.), 115 Pac. Rep. 73, 75. California. , Boyd v. Bargagliotti, 12 Cal. App. 228, 243, 107 Pac. Rep. 150; Barber A. P. Co. v. Santa Barbara I. Co., 13 Cal. App. 597, 110 Pac. Rep. 463, 464; Lucas v. Gobbi, 10 Cal. App. 648, 652, 103 Pac. Rep. 157; Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 611, 95 Pac. Rep. 382; Hub- bard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 607, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 528. See Hoffman -Marks Co. v. Spires, 154 Cal. Ill, 117, 97 Pac. Rep. 152; Stimson M. Co. v. Hughes Mfg. Co., 5 Cal. App. 559, 97 Pac. Rep. 322. Colorado. Ross M. & M. Co. v. Sethman (Colo.), 114 Pac. Rep. 287; Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14; Gillett v. Young, 45 Colo. 562, 101 Pac. Rep. 766; Hottel v. Poudre Valley R. Co., 41 Colo. 370, 92 Pac. Rep. 918, 919. Idaho. Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Idaho 551, 99 Pac. Rep. 98, 99; Val- ley L. Co. v. Driessel, 13 Idaho 662, 93 Pac. Rep. 765, 771. Construction of findings: Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 796, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. See 885, this Supplement, ante. Nevada. Tonopah L. Co. v. Nevada A. Co., 13 Nev. 445, 97 Pac. Rep. 636, 638. Oklahoma. Standard L. Co. v. Miller & Vidor L. Co., 21 Okl. 617, 96 Pac. Rep. 761, 764; Vandenberg v. P. T. Walton L. Co., 19 Okl. 169, 92 Pac. Rep. 149. Washington. Bellingham v. Linck, 53 Wash. 208, 101 Pac. Rep. 843, 844; Smythe v. Lance, 52 Wash. 560, 100 Pac. Rep. 995; Rasmussen v. Liming, 50 Wash. 184, 96 Pac. Rep. 1044; Cornelius v. Washington S. Laundry, 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729; Strandell v. Moran, 49 Wash. 533, 95 Pac. Rep. 1106. Where the lower court does not make a finding; upon a particular issue, it is not ground of reversal where the appellant does not re- quest such finding and where the judgment rendered it inconsistent with any other theory than that the court did so find: Cornelius v. Washington S. Laundry, 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. 38 California. As tn contractor being delayed in his work by the architect of the owner: Seebach v. Kuhn, 9 Cal. App. 485, 490, 99 Pac. Rep. 723. Oregon. But see, contra: Edmunds v. Welling (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 533. so California. Robison v. Mitchell (Cal. Sup.), 114 Pac. Rep. 984, 989. 40 See "New Trial," 877, this Supplement, ante. Bloom's Sup. 20 982-985 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. 982. Same. Who can not attack findings. 41 General creditors. 983. Harmless error. Appellant can not complain of a conclusion of law as not supported by the findings of fact when such conclusion is in his favor. 42 When a question is excluded and the witness has already given in his testimony the elements from which the answer to the main question is deducible, it is not reversible error. 33 Additional matter to foot-note 48. 44 Additional matter to foot-note 49. 4r> 984. Same. Sufficiency of claim of lien. Additional matter to foot-note 51. 40 985. Objecting on appeal for first time. Contract not entirely filed. Additional matter to foot-note 52. 47 41 See "Findings," 885 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 42 California. Dahlberg v. Girsch, 157 Cal. 324, 332, 107 Pac. Rep. 616. 43 California. C. Scheerer & Co. v. Deming, 154 Cal. 138, 143, 97 Pac. Rep. 155. 44 California. Where no Inane In presented as to the amount of liquidated damages provided in the contract or claimed on account thereof, and the court finds that the contract is substantially com- pleted, there is no room for inquiry as to the damages, and evidence improperly excluded as to damages is not prejudicial: Hill v. Clark, 7 Cal. App. 609, 612, 95 Pac. Rep. 382. California. An to une of teams and driver*: See San Francisco T. Co. v. Gray, 11 Cal. App. 314, 104 Pac. Rep. 999. Am to overruling: demurreri Bacigalupi v. Phoenix B. & C. Co. (Cal. App.), 112 Pac. Rep. 892. Colorado. Hottel v. Poudre Valley R. Co., 41 Colo. 370, 92 Pac. Rep. 918, 920. Idaho. AM to admlNnlon of evidence; general rules: Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 799, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. Washington. An to overruling demurrer: Dickerman v. Reeder (Wash.). 109 Pac. Rep. 1060. 45 California. Barrett-Hicks Co. v. Glas, 99 Pac. Rep. 857, 861; s. c.. 9 Cal. App. 491, 99 Pac. Rep. 856, 111 Pac. Rep. 760; s. c., sub nom. Burnett v. Glas, 154 Cal. 249, 97 Pac. Rep. 423. 46 Washington. Under statute allowing amendment of lien notice, same deemed amended in appellate court to promote substantial jus- tice: Cornelius v. Washington S. Laundry, 52 Wash. 272, 100 Pac. Rep. 727, 729. 47 California. A* to eatoppelt Hubbard v. Lee, 6 Cal. App. 602, 609, 92 Pac. Rep. 744; s. c., 10 Cal. App. 477, 102 Pac. Rep. 528. As to 307 APPEAL. 986-991 986. Same. Description of land. 48 987. Same. Uncertainty of interest in property. 988. Consolidated cases. 49 Hearing on appeal. V 989. Order on appeal. 50 New trial. Additional matter to foot-note 57. 51 990. Same. New trial/' 2 When sustained. 991. Same. Attorneys' fees. Additional matter to foot-note 60. 5:J modification of contract by parol: Lacy Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles G. & E. Co., 12 Cal. App. 37, 42, 106 Pac. Rep. 413. Colorado. As to change in cause of action by amendment: Foley v. Coon, 41 Colo. 432, 93 Pac. Rep. 13, 14. Idaho. As to failure of foreign corporation to comply with state law: See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5. 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 800, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. ]Vew Mexico. See Neher v. Viviani (N. M.), 110 Pac. Rep. 695, 698. Washington. Driver v. Galland (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 593, 594. *8 See 399 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 49 See "Consolidation," 869 et seq., this Supplement, ante. 50 Idaho. Order on appeal; findings modified: See Nelson Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls L. & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 Pac. Rep. 789, 798, 92 Pac. Rep. 980. si California. See Klokke v. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 7, 96 Pac. Rep. 392. Idaho. New trial of whole case: See Valley L. & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson, 13 Idaho 682, 93 Pac. -Rep. 24, 27. Kansas. Compare Wichita S. & D. Co. v. Weil, 80 'Kan. 606, 103 Pac. Rep. 1003, 1004. Washington. Order on appeal: See Use v. Aetna I. Co., 55 Wash. 487, 104 Pac. Rep. 787. 52 See "New trial," 877, this Supplement, ante. 53 See 935 and 940, this Supplement, ante. Oregon. Order on appeal: Litherland v. S. Morton Cohn R. E. & I. Co., 54 Oreg. 1, 102 Pac. -Rep. 303, 100 Pac. Rep. 1. 308 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. CHAPTER XLVI. FORMS. CONTRACTS, NOTICES, CLAIMS, COMPLAINTS, ETC. Form No. 1. Statutory original contract. Skeleton form. Additional matter to foot-note 2. 1 Additional matter to foot-note 3. 2 Additional matter to foot-note 4. 3 Additional matter to foot-note 5. 4 Additional matter to foot-note II. 5 Form No. 2. Building contract. Clause for working drawings. Additional matter to foot-note 12. Form No. 3. Building contract. Clause for delays. Additional matter to foot-note 14." Form No. 4. Building contract. Clause for certificates of architect as to payments. Additional matter to foot-note 15. 8 1 California. The Statutory Original Contract was abolished by Amendment of May 1, 1911, to 1183, Code Civ. Proc. (Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.). See Si 258, 269, 274, 281, 288 and 328, this Supplement, ante. Clause similar to paragraph "Third" but not mentioning times of payments, construed: Hettlnger v. Thiele (Cal. App.), 113 Pac. Rep. 121. 2 \\ :iviiiiiuiy the American Institute of Architects and the National Association of Builders, construed: See Keenan v. Empire State S. Co. (Wash.), 113 Pac. Rep. 636. 17 California. Clause requiring contractor to deliver free of liens: See Klokke v. Raphael, 8 Cal. App. 1, 96 Pac. Rep. 392. is Form of contract known as "Uniform contract adopted and ren- dered for general use by the American Institute of Architects and the National Association of Builders" referred to in Rathbun v. State, 15 Idaho 273, 97 Pac. Rep. 335; Keenan v. Empire State S. Co. (Wash.), 113 Pac. Rep. 636. Oregon. "Good and workmanlike manner,* construed: Holland v. Rhoades (Oreg.), 106 Pac. Rep. 779. FORMS. 311 Form No. 16. Bond for performance of original contract. Additional matter to foot-note 33. 19 Form No. 17. Notice of non-responsibility by owner. Structure. Additional matter to foot-note 34. 20 Form No. 17a. Notice of non-responsibility. Structures and Street work. (Under 1192 Cal. C. C. P., as amended, Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.) To All Whom It May Concern : Notice is Hereby Given that the undersigned is the owner in fee simple absolute of the lot , 'piece and parcel of land hereinafter described; that the name of said owner is - ; that the nature of his title and interest is that of fee simple absolute; that said owner will not be responsible, nor will said land nor any part thereof be liable, for any improvement, construction, alteration or repair, or work or labor, or materials used, in, upon, under or about said land, or any part thereof, or the sidewalk, or street, in Owner agreeing to provide labor and materials essential, not in- cluding the contract, so as not to delay its progress; form: See Mclnnis v. Buchanan, 53 Oreg. 229, 99 Pac. Rep. 129. Contract for clearing right of way for railroad; form construed: See Williams v. Mount Hood Ry. & P. Co. (Oreg.), 110 Pac. Rep. 490, 111 Pac. Rep. 17. Washington. Form of contract for excavating, blasting, etc., con- strued: James v. Beebe (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 732. Form of construction contract: See Young Men's Christian Assoc. v. Gibson, 58 Wash. 307, 108 Pac. Rep. 766, 767. Clause in contract, contractor saving owner harmless from liens: See Holm v. Chicago M. & P. S. Ry. Co. (Wash.), 109 Pac. Rep. 799, 800. 19 Colorado. Condition of bond construed with reference to furnish- ing of labor and materials and payments: See Covey v. Schiesswohl (Colo.), 114 Pac. Rep. 292. Washington. Bond that the contractor will replace certain portions of the work: See City of Spokane v. Costello, 57 Wash. 183, 106 Pac. Rep. 764. Agreement between surety and owner for surety to complete build- ing, owner waiving claims for damages for delay, etc., construed: Exposition A. Co. v. Empire State S. Co., 49 Wash. 637, 96 Pac. Rep. 158, 97 Pac. Rep. 464. 20 See 1192 Code Civ. Proc., as amended May 1, 1911 (Stats, and Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313, et seq.). 312 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. front of or adjoining the same, nor for any improvements in connection therewith. The following is a description of the land hereinabove referred to, to wit: All that certain lot, piece and parcel of land situate in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, more particularly described as follows, to wit: (here describe land). Dated - . A. B., Owner in fee simple ab- solute of said described land. Form No. 17b. Verification to foregoing notice of non-respon- sibility. (Form No. 17a.) State of California, ^ s SS City and County of San Francisco, j A. B., being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is a white male citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years ; that the foregoing notice is, and the facts stated therein are, true of his own knowledge ; that the fore- going notice is a full, true and correct copy of the notice in writing posted in a conspicuous place upon the property described therein, on the - day of , 1911 ; that affiant is the - - owner in fee simple absolute of said property; and that said foregoing copy of said notice and said notice posted as aforesaid contain a description of the property affected thereby sufficient for identification, with the name, and the nature of the title and interest of the person giving the same. A. B. Subscribed and sworn to before me this - day of , 1911. (Seal) C. D., Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Fran- cisco, State of California. FORMS. 313 Form No. 20. Notice to owner of furnishing materials or performing labor. Additional matter to foot-note 36. 21 Form No. 31. Release of lien. Additional matter to foot-note 48. 22 Form No. 32. Complaint for foreclosure of lien. Original contractor, under non-statutory original contract. Additional matter to foot-note 49. 23 21 California. In this form strike out the clause "including counsel fees," the same being held unconstitutional. Washington. Notice to municipality; form construed: Strandell v. Moran, 49 Wash. 533, 95 Pac. Rep. 1106. Notice to school district: Cascade L. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 503, 106 Pac. Rep. 158; Minneapolis S. & M. Co. v. Aetna I. Co., 56 Wash. 699, 106 Pac. Rep. 160. 22 Washington. Release of lien; form construed: Seattle L. Co. v. Cutler (Wash.), 116 Pac. Rep. 1. 23 California. Tender in answer by owner, construed: Los Angeles P. B. Co. v. Higgins, 8 Cal. App. 514, 521, 97 Pac. Rep. 414, 420. Montana. Form of complaint to foreclose the lien for constructing cistern: See Neuman v. Grant, 36 Mont. 77, 92 Pac. Rep. 43. TABLE OF AMENDED SECTIONS AND COMPARATIVE SECTIONS OF NEW COMPILATIONS. CALIFORNIA. See Appendix. (315) 316 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. OREGON. CHAPTER XII. LIENS ON STRUCTURES. MACHINERY AND LAND. Lord's Oreg. Laws. B. & C. H. 7416 5640 9 3669 8 7417 9 5641 9 3670 9 7418 9 5642 9 3671 9 7419 9 5643 9 3672 97420 95644 93673 9 7421 9 5645 9 3674 9 7422 9 5646 9 3675 9 7423 9 5647 9 3676 9 7424 9 5648 9 3677 7425 9 5649 9 3678 7426 9 5650 9 3679 7427 9 5651 9 3680 7428 9 5652 9 3681 9 7429 9 5653 9 7430 9 5654 9 7431 9 5655 9 7432 9 5656 9 7433 9 5657 9 7434 9 5658 9 7435 9 5659 9 7436 9 5660 9 7437 9 5661 9 7438 9 5662 9 7439 9 5663 7440 9 5664 9 7441 9 5665 9 7442 9 5666 9 7443 9 5667 9 7444 9 5668 9 7445 9 5669 9 7446 L. 1907 C. 152, 9 3 9 7447 L. 1907 C. 152, 9 4 97448 L. 1907 C. 152, 95 7449 L. 1907 C. 152, 9 6 9 7450 L. 1907 C. 152, 9 7 STATUTES AMENDMENTS NEW COMPILATIONS. WASHINGTON. TITLE VIII, CHAPTER III. [Remington & Ballinger's Ann. Codes & Stats.] LIENS OF MECHANICS AND MATERIAL-MEN. Pierce. Rem. & Bal. 6102 1129 6103 1130 6104 1131 6105 1132 6106 1134 6107 1135 6108 1136 6109 1137 6110 1138 6111 1139 6112 1140 6113 1141 6114 1142 6115 1143 6116 1144 6117 1145 6118 1146 6119 1147 6120 1148 6133 1149 6134 1150 6135 1151 6136 1152 6137 1153 318 MECHANICS' LIENS SUPPLEMENT. WYOMING. Compiled Stats. 1910. Rev. Stats. 1899. 3799 2889 3800 2890 3801 2891 3802 2892 3803 2893 3804 2894 3805 (Amended 1911.) 2895 3806 2896 3807 2897 3808 2898 3809 2899 3810 2900 3811 2901 3812 2902 3813 2903 3814 2904 3815 2905 3816 2906 3817 2907 3818 2908 3819 2909 3820 2910 APPENDIX CALIFORNIA LIEN LAW As Amended by Chapter 681, Statutes and Amendments 1911, Pages 1313 et seq., Approved May 1, 1911; in Effect Sixty Days From and After May 1, 1911. FULLY ANNOTATED, BY REFERENCES TO TREATISE AND SUP- PLEMENT. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. While much might be written in a speculative way relative to the construction which should be given to the California mechanics '-lien law of 1911, in anticipation of the decisions of the courts, the writer has preferred to simply bind the new code sections into his work by numerous references to the Treatise and Supplement. The previous rulings of the appellate courts of California and of the Western States are thus promptly brought to bear upon any particular clause under consideration. Throughout the Supplement, also, references have been made to changes in the various provisions. The author of the bill originally introduced, the late Alex- ander G. Eells, Esq., and those who supported it, evidently looked forward to a greater clarity in the statute and a more adequate protection for those for whose benefit the law was intended. In the process of legislation, however, the bill proposed was modified in a number of particulars. Those who opposed the original bill upon grounds of policy, notably Prank Gr. Drum, Esq., and H. U. Brandenstein, Esq., so far succeeded, that it is questionable whether the results antici- pated for the original bill will be achieved in the amendments as passed. Indeed, it may even be suggested that the changes are more formal than substantial. San Francisco, Cal., July 1, 1911. Note: For index to code sections, see Index to Supplement, tit. Cali- fornia Code Sections, post. (319) 1183 C. C. P. APPENDIX. 320 2 1183. Mechanics, 4 material-men,"' contractors, sub-con- Persons entitled.* 1 Structures: See Scope note, Treatise, f 130. Division* of, before amendment of 1911: See Treatise and Supple- ment, { 134-137. 2 First clause; Structures* Before amendment of 1911: See Treatise and Supplement, IS 131-135. Importance of fixing clause under which case falls: See Treatise and Supplement, I 136. Structures In generals See Treatise and Supplement, f 173. Structures enumerated In statutes See Treatise and Supplement, S 175. Structures not enumerated In statutes See Treatise and Supple- ment, | 174. Structures In mlness See Treatise and Supplement, 191. See note 47, | 1183. See index, tit. "Structure." 3 Persons entitled s See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, { 42-44. Constitutional and legislative classifications s See Treatise and Sup- plement, SS 28 and 42. 4 Mechanics s Definition of mechanics See Treatise, S 110, note, page 102. Constitutional and legislative classifications s See Treatise and Sup- plement, S 42. 5 Material-men s Constitutional and legislative classifications s See Treatise and Supplement, SS 28 and 42; and see, generally, 1877-103. Definition of material-men s See Treatise and Supplement, I 78. Who are not material-men: See Treatise and Supplement, { 79 and 80. Distinction between material-man and original contractor and sub- contractor: See Treatise and Supplement, 77, 81 and 60. Distinction between material-man and laborer: See Treatise and Supplement, ( 93. Circumstances under which a lien Is given to material-man: See Treatise and Supplement Si 82-100. Rights of material-man: See Treatise and Supplement, f 101. Obligations of material-mans See Treatise and Supplement, S 102. Owner's material-man, right of action: See Treatise and Supple- ment. S 643. See index, tit. "Material-man." 6 Contractors Constitutional and legislative classifications: See Treatise and Supplement, 55 28 and 42. Definition of original contractors See Treatise and Supplement, 145. Tests or original contractors See Treatise and Supplement, SS 46-59. Distinction between original contractor and material-man: See Treatise and Supplement, {{ 60, 77, 79 and 80. General rights of original contractor: See Treatise and Supplement, SS 61-63. General obligations of original contractors: See Treatise and Sup- plement, If 64, 65. See Index, tit. "Original contractor." 321 APPENDIX. 1183 C Q p tractors," artisans, 8 architects, 9 machinists, 10 builders, 11 Persons entitled. 7 Subcontractors: Constitutional and legislative classifications: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 28-42. Definition of "subcontractor": See Treatise and Supplement, 66. Different degrees of subcontractors: See Treatise and Supplement, 67. Distinction between subcontractor and material-man, and employee of material-man: See Treatise and Supplement, 68, 77 and 81. Distinction between subcontractor nnd assignee of original con- tractor: See Treatise and Supplement, 69, and note, Treatise, p. 72. General rights of subcontractors: See Treatise and Supplement, 70-75. General obligations of subcontractors: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 76. See Index, tit. "subcontractor." s Artisans: Constitutional and legislative classifications: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 28 and 42. Definition of artisan: See Treatise, 110, note 8, p. 102. Distinguished fr4m contractor, subcontractor and material-mam See Treatise and Supplement, " 107. General rights: See Treatise and Supplement, 112-116. General obligations: See Treatise and Supplement, 117, 118. See Index, tit. "Laborer." 9 Architects: Constitutional and legislative classifications: See Treatise and Supplement, 28 and 42. Definition of architect: See Treatise, 121 and 110, note 8, p. 102. Regulation of architects: See Treatise and Supplement, 122. Rights of architects: See Treatise and Supplement, 123. Right of architect to Hen: See Treatise and Supplement, 124. Powers of architect: See Treatise and Supplement, 125. Relation between architect and owner: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 126. Architect as agent of owner: See Treatise and Supplement, 127. Architect as subcontractor: See Treatise, 128. Obligations of architect: See Treatise and Supplement, 129, and see duties set out in detail in 129a et seq., Supplement. Certificates of architect: See Treatise and Supplement, 238-242. Fraud of architect: See Treatise and Supplement, 239. See notes 8, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 to 1183 with reference to perform- ance of labor. See Index, tit. "Architect," tit. "Certificate," tit. "Plans and Specifi- cations." 10 Machinists: Constitutional and legislative classifications: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 28 and 42. Definition of machinist: See Treatise, 110, note 8, p. 103. Distinguished from contractor, subcontractor and material-man: See Treatise and Supplement, 107. Machine as object of labor: See Treatise and Supplement, 180. General rights: See Treatise and Supplement, 112-116. General obligations: See Treatise and Supplement, 117, 118. Bloom's Sup. 21 1183C.r.P. APPENDIX. 322 Persons entitled, miners, 12 [teamsters l '' and draymen,] 14 and all persons 15 and laborers of every class 16 performing labor 17 upon, [or Machinery an fixture: See Treatise and Supplement, 185-187. See Index, tit. "Laborer," tit. "Machinery," tit. "Fixtures." 11 Builder* i i iiii-i iin(i..n:ii and legislative classification*: See Treatise and Sup- plement, if 28 and 42. HMiniih.il of bullderi See Treatise, $ 110, note 8, p. 102. DIstlngulNhed from contractors See Treatise, 15 58 and 107. General rlKbt*: See Treatise and Supplement, 112-116. General obligation*: See Treatise and Supplement, |{ 117, 118. See Index, tit. "Laborer," tit. "Builder." 12 Mineral ConMtltutlonal and legislative classification*: See Treatise and Sup- plement, if 28 and 42. See, also, "Second Clause," post, this section, note 65. Definition of miner: See Treatise, i 110, note 8, p. 103. Mining Nuperlntendent: See Treatise, 150, note 34. General rights: See Treatise and Supplement, | 112-116. General obligation*! See Treatise, 117, 118. Work In mine*! See Treatise and Supplement, f $ 145-155. See Nature of labor! Treatise and Supplement, 8 130-165 and par- ticularly i 165. See Index, tit. "Laborer," tit. "Mines," tit. "Mines and Mining Claims." 13 Teamsters: Constitutional and legislative classifications: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 28 and 42. Teanmter for material-man: See Treatise and Supplement, 163, and see note 51, p. 132, Treatise. General right*! See Treatise and Supplement, S 112-115. General obligation*: See Treatise and Supplement, 117, 118. See Index, tit. "Laborers." l* Draymen: Conatltutlonal and legislative classifications: See Treatise and Sup- plement, {! 28 and 42. Teaming for material-man: See Treatise, 163. See Teamster, note 13, this section, ante. 15 All persons performing labor: Distinction between "laborer" and "person performing labor": See Treatise, f 104, note 4. Dl*tlnguliihed from "con tract or," "*ubcontractor" and "material- man": See Treatise and Supplement, { 107. Do not create "Intermediate lien holder*": See Treatise and Sup- plement, 108. General right*: See Treatise and Supplement, J 112-116. General obligation*: See Treatise and Supplement, 55 117, 118. See, generally, "Nature of labor for which a lien is given," Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. See note 16, { 1183 C. C. P. See Index, tit. "Laborers," tit. "Labor." 18 Laborer* of every da**: Constitutional and legislative clarifications: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 28 and 42. 323 APPENDIX. 1183 Q C p bestowing 1S skill 10 or other necessary services,] 20 or fur- Persons entitled. nishing 21 materials 22 to be used 23 [or consumed in 24 or Distinction between laborer and person performing labor: See Treatise, 104, note 4. "Laborer" distinguished from "contractor," "subcontractor," and "material-man": See Treatise and Supplement, 107. Do not create "Intermediate lien holders": See Treatise and Sup- plement, 108. General rights of laborer: See Treatise and Supplement, 112-116. General obligations of laborer: See Treatise and Supplement, 117, 118. See General nature of labor for* which lien is given: Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. See Index, tit. "Laborers," tit. "Labor." 17 Performing labor: Classes of labor for which a lien is given: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 130-134. Distinction between "performing labor" and "furnishing labor"; See Treatise, 138, note 7, p. 117. Distinction between "labor performed" and "labor bestowed": See Treatise, 138. See General nature of labor: Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. is Definition of "bestowed": See Treatise, 138. 19 Skill; definition: Standard dictionary: 1. "The familiar knowledge of any science, art, or handicraft, with corresponding readiness and dexterity in execution or performance or in the application of science, art, or knowledge in general to practical purposes; practical efficiency; dexterity." 20 Other necessary services: See, generally, "labor for which a lien is given," Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. 21 Furnishing: "When materials are "furnished": See Treatise and Supplement, 88. 22 Materials: Distinction between labor contract and contract for material: See Treatise and Supplement, 59, 80 and 83. Nature of materials, when lien allowed and when not: See, gener- ally, Treatise and Supplement, 87-91. Package of material: See Treatise and Supplement, 90. Carriage charges: See Treatise and Supplement, 91. See Index, tit. "Materials," tit. "Material-man." 28 Use nf materials: Contract for use of materials: See Treatise and Supplement, 82. General essentials: See Treatise and Supplement, 86. Nature and manner of use of materials: See Treatise and Supple- .ment, 87. Materials, how used: See Treatise and Supplement, 89. See Index tit. "Materials," tit. "Material-man," and tit. "Use of Ma- terials." 24 Consumed: Materials consumed: See Treatise and Supplement, 89. Powder consumed: See Treatise and Supplement, 90. See Index, tit. "Materials." 1183 C. C. P. APPENDIX. 324 furnishing appliances, 2 "' teams-' 1 and power- 7 contributing 28 Nature of work.w to] the construction, 30 alteration, 31 addition to 32 or repair 33 Object of labor.s* either in whole or in part, of any building, 3 -" wharf, 36 23 PurnlNliliifc appliance*! VarlouM appliances enumerated: See Treatise and Supplement, | 89. -'t Team*: Definition: See Supplement, f 91, note. Teaming; fur material-man i See Treatise and Supplement, { 163. Cartage chart?: See Treatise and Supplement, | 91. See notes 13 and 14 and 25, this section. 27 Poweri See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 5 86-89. 28 Contributing! See "Labor for which a lien is not given": Treatise and Supple- ment, J 161. Preliminary worki See Treatise and Supplement, { 162. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, if 86-89. See notes 25, 26 and 27, supra, this section. 2 Labor for which a Hen In given: See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, i 130-165. See notes 25-28, supra, this section. so Construction! See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, If 144, 145, and 148. Construction of mine: See Treatise and Supplement, 9 150. General nature of labor for which a lien In given! See Treatise and Supplement, |{ 130-165. 31 Alteration: Character of alteration: See Treatise and Supplement, f 146. Distinction between alteration and repair: See Treatise and Sup- plement, $ 147. Distinction between alteration and erection: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 148. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, } 144, 145. General nature of labor for which a lien Is given: See Treatise and Supplement, |{ 130-165. See notes 30, 32 and 33, f 1183. See Index, tit. "Alterations." 32 Addition to: See Treatise and Supplement, f 144. Construction of contracts as to "addition": See Treatise and Sup- plement, $ 220. See notes, 30, 31, and 33, $ 1183, C. C. P. 33 Repair: Distinction between alteration and repair: See Treatise, 147. See, generally, Treatise, |{ 144 and 145. General nature of labor for which a lien Is given! See Treatise and Supplement, IS 130-165. See notes 30, 31 and 32, | 1183, C. C. P. 34 Object nf labori See, generally. Treatise and Supplement, 5 166-192. ss Building! Variable use of term: See Treatise, } 170, note 9. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, if 174 and 175. Ditch not a building! See Treatise, 177. 325 APPENDIX. 1183 C Q p bridge," ditch, 38 flume, 39 aqueduct, 40 well, 41 tunnel, 42 Object of labor. fence, 43 machinery, 44 railroad, 45 wagon road 46 or other Building as fixture: See Treatise, 186. See, generally, also, "Object on which labor must be performed": Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. Construction of contract -with reference: See Treatise, 220. See Index, tit. "Building." 36 Wharf: Wharf not a bridge: See Treatise, 176. Ditch not a wharf: See Treatise, 177. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. 37 Bridge: Bridge not a wharf: See Treatise, 176. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. 38 Ditch: See Treatise and Supplement, 177. Ditch not a wharf: See Treatise, 177. Flume considered as a ditch: See Treatise, 177. Ditch not a building: See Treatise, 177. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. 39 Flume: See, generally, Treatise, 177. Flume considered as a ditch: See Treatise, 177. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. 40 Aqueduct: See Treatise, 177. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 166- 192. 41 Well: See Treatise and Supplement, 178. Oil well: See Treatise and Supplement, 172. Contract to bore -well holes, construed: See Treatise, 220. "Water well: See Treatise, 705. Appurtenances to -well: See Treatise, 440, note 7. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. 42 Tunnel: Tunnel in mine: See Treatise, 153 and 179. Tunnel to develop water: See Treatise, 179, note 35, p. 143. Contract to timber tunnel construed: See Treatise, 220. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. ' 43 Compare Treatise and Supplement, 174. 44 Machinery: Object of labor, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, | 166-192. "Work upon machinery as a fixture: See Treatise and Supplement, 95, 180, 174, 185, 772, 447. Contract to furnish certain machinery: See Treatise, 228, note, p. 177. Machine in mine and mining claims: See Treatise and Supplement, 191, 445, 451. Lien for repairing machinery on mine: See Treatise, 150. 45 Railroad: Railroad and railway as structure: See Treatise and Supplement, 181. Extent of Hen on railroads: See Treatise and Supplement, {{ 447, 449 and 181. 1183C.C.P. APPENDIX. ;;._,,; Extent of iien.so structure, 47 shall have a lien 48 upon the property 40 upon which they have bestowed labor or furnished materials, for the value r>1 of such labor done and materials furnished [and Application of mechanic*' Hen to railroad: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 5 369, 447 and 403. Description In cae of mechanics' Urn: See Treatise, { 405. Tramway on mining claim : See Treatise, } 174. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, If 166-192. See Index, tit. "Railroads." 48 Wag-on road: See Treatise, | 149, note 29, p. 122. 47 "Other trncture"! Other ntructureii not enumerated In statute, generally! See Treatise and Supplement, 5 174. Boarding house on mining clalmi See Treatise, $ 174. Ice-room, attached to warehouses See Treatise, 174. Pipe line for Irrigation company: See Treatise, 174. Poles net In ground for electric line: See Treatise, 174. Reduction-works upon mine, and stamp mill: See Treatise, f 174. Swings between upright posts: See Treatise, f 174. See notes 1 and 2, 1183, C. C. P., ante. See Index, tit. "Structures." 48 Lien: Definition of Lien: Treatise, I 362. Classification of mechanics' Hens: See Treatise and Supplement, 10-17. Theory of the lawt See Treatise and Supplement, f 6. Kinship between statutes of different states: See Treatise and Sup- plement, | 18. General peculiarities of mechanics' liens: See Treatise and Supple- ment. {} 19-23. See Index, tit. "Liens." 49 Property: Distinguished from object of labor: See Treatise and Supplement, 5 166. 167. Description of property In claim: See Treatise and Supplement, J 399-407. Territorial extent of Hen: See Treatise and Supplement, { 438-451. Estates and Interests subject to Hen: See Treatise and Supplement, it 459-485. See Index, tit. "Property," tit. "Description of property to be charged." so Extent of Hen: Territorial extent: See Treatise, {{446-448. Property viewed as an entirety: See Treatise, 447-451. Lien as limited by contract: See Treatise, {{ 452-458. Estates and Interest* subject to Hen, by contract: See Treatise and Supplement, f{ 459-468. Estates and Interests subject to Hen, by estoppel: See Treatise and Supplement, 469-485. Priorities: See Treatise and Supplement, JJ 486-507. See Index, tit. "Extent of lien," tit. "Limitation on liens." BI Valve of labor and materials: 327 APPENDIX. 11830. 0. P. for the value of the use of such appliances, teams or power], whether at the instance of the owner/"' 2 or of any other per- son acting by his authority or under him, 54 as contractor or otherwise, 55 and [every contractor, 56 sub-contractor, 57 Construction of, as lined in statutes: See Treatise and Supplement, 456. Current price as evidence of value: See Treatise, 833. Other evidence of value: See Treatise, 834. Contract as evidence of value: See Treatise and Supplement, 829- 833. Statement of claim showing value: See Treatise, 390, note 123. See Index, tit. "Value." , 52 Owner: See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 508-571. General rights of owner and employer: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 510-522. General obligations of owner: See Treatise, 523-546. Owner and reputed owner: See Treatise and Supplement, 509. Liability of owner upon statutory notice to withhold: See Treatise and Supplement, 547-571. See Index, tit. "Owner," tit. "Owner, Employer or Person Causing Improvement." 53 Agency for owner: See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 572-584. Husband as agent of wife: See Treatise and Supplement, 572. Wife as agent of husband: See Treatise and Supplement, 572. See Index, tit. "Agency," tit. "Agent." 54 "Acting by his authority or under him": Agency, actual and ostensible: See Treatise and Supplement, 572. Agency by statutory estoppel: See Treatise and Supplement, 573- 576. Persons in possession as agent of the owner: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 577, 578. See Index, tit. "Agency," tit. "Agent." 55 "As contractor or otherwise": See "Agency," generally, Treatise and Supplement, 572-584. As to contractor, see note 6, this section, ante. Contractor as agent: See note 56, this section, post. Person in possession as agent of the owner: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 575. As to vendee in possession: See Treatise and Supplement, 463, 478. As to lessee: See Treatise and Supplement, 464, 477, and 574. As to unauthorized trustee: See Treatise, 465. See note 60, this section, post. See Index, tit. "Agent," tit. "Agency," tit. "Contractor," tit. "Original Contractor." 56 Contractor: Contractor as agent: See note 55, this section, ante. See contractor, generally, note 6, this section, ante. Contractor as stautory agent of the owner: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 574 and 697. See "Agency," generally: Treatise and Supplement, 572-584. See Index, tit. "Agent," tit. "Agency," tit. "Original Contractor." 11V{( 1 . ('. P. APPENDIX. 328 Agency for owner. an( j architect, :>s builder V) or other person having charge 60 of the construction, alteration, addition to or repair t;i either in whole or in part of any building, r> - or other improve- ment r>! as aforesaid shall be held to be the agent r>4 of the owner for the purposes of this chapter]. 87 Subcontractor: Subcontractor us aKcnt of owner: See note 7, this section, ante. subcontractor, Kent-rally: See Treatise and Supplement. 66-76. Agency: See Treatise, 5 572-584. See Index, tit. "Agent," tit. "Agency," tit. "Subcontractor." 68 Architect: See note 9, this section, ante. Architect, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, || 119-129, and Supplement. Architect an agent of the owner: See Treatise and Supplement, { 579. Agency, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, Si 572-584. See Index, tit. "Architect," tit. "Agent," tit. "Agency." 59 Builder: See note 11, this section, ante. Definition of builder: See Treatise, I 110, note 8, p. 102. Distinguished from contractor: See Treatise, 58, 107. Agency, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, ff 572-584. See Index, tit. "Builder," tit. "Agent," tit. "Agency." 60 Other person having charge: See note 55, this section, ante. Agency, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 55 572-584. See Index, tit. "Vendor," tit. "Vendee," tit. "Lessor," tit. "Lessee," tit. "Agent," tit. "Agency." 81 Construction, alteration, addition to or repair: See Nature of work, note 29, this section, ante. Construction: See note 30, this section, ante. Alteration: See note 31, this section, ante. Addition to: See note 32, this section, ante. Repaint: See note 33, this section, ante. Labor for which Hen In given, generally: See Treatise and Supple- ment, f 166-192. See Index, tit. "Construction," tit. "Alteration," tit. "Repair," tit "Addition to," tit. "Alteration or Repair." 02 Building: See note 35, this section, ante. See Index, tit. "Building." 63 Definition of "Improvement": See Treatise, 141. Improvement distinct from the land: See Treatise, 380. Meaning of Improvement variable an lined In mechanics' lien law: See Treatise, g 171. Object on which labor must be performed: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 5 166-192, and, also, 5 158. See Index, tit. "Improvement," tit. "Structure," tit. "Object on which labor must be performed," and see specific structures. 64 Agent of owner: See | 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 60, this sec- tion, ante. See Index, tit. "Agent," tit. "Agency." 329 APPENDIX. 1183 C Any person who performs labor 6 ~ in any mining claim or M , lneil and MInln * claims. 69 or in or upon any real property worked as a mine, 70 second ciauiie.es ' r Persons entitled.68 either in the development 72 thereof or in working thereon ? T b i ect of iabor.es Nature of work.'i 65 Mine;* and mining claims: Second Clause: Definition of mine: See Treatise and Supplement, 183. Labor for which a lien is given in mines: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 132-137; 149-155; 165. Object on which the labor must be performed in mines: See Trea- tise and Supplement, | 182-183. Work on fixtures in mines: See Treatise and Supplement, 191. See Index, tit. "Mines and Mining Claims." 66 Persons entitled: See notes 3-20, this section, ante. Persons entitled in general: See Treatise and Supplement, 42-44. Liens allowed for work on mining claims: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 150. 67 Person who performs labor: See notes 12, 15-17, this section, ante. Persons performing labor, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 104-118. Nature of labor for which a lien is given In mines: See Treatise and Supplement, 132-137; 149-155, and 165. Liens allowed for work in mining claims: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 150. See Index, tit. "Mines and Mining Claims," tit. "Labor," tit. "Labor for which a lien is given," tit. "Laborer," tit. "Work." 68 Object of labor: See note 34, this section, ante. Object on which labor must be performed: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 166-192. See Index, tit. "Object of Labor." 69 Mining claim or claims: Definition of mining claim: See Treatise, 182. What not included within meaning of mining claim: See Treatise, { 182. Oil well a mine or mining claim: See Treatise, 182. See Index, tit. "Mine," tit. "Mining Claims." TO Real property worked as a mine: See note 69, this section, ante. Definition of mine: See Treatise, 183 and 96. See Index, tit. "Mines and Mining Claims." 71 Nature of -work: See note 29 as to structure, this section, ante. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 130, 165; particularly, 132-137; 149-155, and 165. Work on fixtures on mine: See Treatise and Supplement, 191. See Index, tit. "Labor for which lien is given." 72 Development: Drifting not strictly alteration, addition to or repair, within statute: See Treatise, 96 and 152. Running tunnel: See Treatise, 153. Shaft and other mining instrumentalities: See Treatise, 154. Development -work, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 7, 150, and 152. Exploration of geologist and mining expert: See Treatise, 150. Cleaning out tunnel: See Treatise, 150. See Index, tit. "Mines and Mining Claims." 1183C. C.P. APPENDIX. 330 Extent of llen.TT Owner actor.si Agency owner. for by the subtractive process " 3 [or furnishes materials to be used " 4 or consumed 7r> therein], has a lien 76 upon the same and the works ~ 8 'owned and used by the owners for [mill- ing or] reducing the ores from the same, 70 for the value 80 of the work or labor done or materials furnished by each respectively, whether done or furnished at the instance of the owner of such mining claim or claims or real property worked as a [mine, 82 or] his agent, 83 and every contractor, 84 73 Subtrartlve proceNMt See note 72, this section, ante. Drifting* See Treatise, | 152. Levela, chuten, ntopen, uprisen, croM-cutn, Incline*: See Treatise, | 154. See Index, tit. "Mines and Mining Claims." 74 Material* to be lined In nilnlnK claims See Material-man, note 5, this section, ante. Contract for une of materlalMi See Treatise and Supplement, { 82. E*Nentlal>: See Treatise and Supplement, 86. Materlaln, how lined: See Treatise and Supplement, JS 89, 96. Powder for blasting: See Treatise, { 90. Mature of labor for which uiied: See Treatise and Supplement, IJ99, 100. See Index, tit. "Materials," tit. "material-man," tit. "mines and mining claims." 73 See note 5, "Material-man"; note 74, "Materials to be used," this section, ante. ( ons ii in pi ion of material! See Treatise, 89. Powders See Treatise, $ 90. Oil* and fuel: See Treatise, ! 89, note, p. 88. 76 Lien: See note 48, this section. 77 Extent of lien: A to mine: See Treatise and Supplement, { 443, 444, 451. See Index, tit. "Mines," tit. "Mines and mining claims." 78 Upon the name and the workii: See note 77, this section. Mill and reduction workn: See Treatise, | 451, and f 444, note, p. 399. 70 tir,-s from the rame: CUM torn mill: See Supplement, Index. so For the value: See note 51, this section, ante. See Index, tit. "Value." si Owner an actor: See note 52, this section, ante. 12 Real property worked an a mine: Dlntlnctlon between mining claim and mine: See Treatise, 182. 83 Agency for owner: See note 63, this section, ante. Pernon working mine an agent: See Treatise, $578, 696. 84 Contractor: Conntltutlonal and legislative claMlncatlonn: See Treatise and Supplement, 28 and 42. Definition of original contractor: See Treatise and Supplement, i 45. Teatn of original contractor: See Treatise and Supplement, Si 46-59. 331 APPENDIX. 1183 C. C. P. sub-contractor, 85 [superintendent 80 or] other person hav- A sency for owner. ing charge of any mining or work or labor performed in and about such mining claim or claims or real property worked as a [mine, either] as lessee 87 or under a working bond or contract 88 [thereon shall] be held to be the agent 89 of the owner for the purposes of this chapter. [The liens in this chapter provided for shall be direct Nature of lien - liens, 91 and shall not in the case of any claimants, other Extent ot llen - than the contractor be limited, as to amount, by any contract taon? ctual 1Imi " Distinction between original contractor and material-man: See Treatise and Supplement, 60, 77, 79 and 80. General rights of original contractor: See Treatise and Supplement, 61-63. General obligations of original contractors: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 64, 65. See Index, tit. "Original contractor." 85 Subcontractors: Constitutional and legislative classifications: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 28-42. Definition of "subcontractor": See Treatise and Supplement, 66. Different degrees of subcontractors: See Treatise and Supplement, 67. Distinction between subcontractor and material-man, and employee of material-man: See Treatise and Supplement, 68, 77 and 81. Distinction betw r een subcontractor and assignee of original con- tractor: See Treatise and Supplement, 69, and note; Treatise, p. 72. General rights of subcontractors: See Treatise and Supplement, 70-75. General obligations of subcontractors: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 76. See Index, tit. "Subcontractor." 86 Superintendent: Distinction between mining superintendent and superintendent of a mine: See Treatise, 150. 87 Lessee of a mine: Lessee of mine as agent by contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 464, 467, and 421. See, also, Treatise, 36, note, p. 43. Lessee of mine as agent by estoppel: See Treatise and Supplement, 477. Notice of non-responsibility, generally: See Treatise and Supple- ment, . 469-485. 88 Working bond or contract: See note 87, this section, ante. Vendee in possession: See Treatise and Supplement, 463, 477 and 478. 89 See notes 53, 65, and 83, this section, ante. 90 Nature of lien: General nature of lien: See note 47, this section, ante. Classifications of lien: See Treatise and Supplement, | 10-17. 91 Direct lien: Definition: See Treatise and Supplement, 10-14. 11S:{('.C.P. APPENDIX. limitation? 1 price 92 agreed upon between the contractor and the owner except as hereinafter provided ;'''' but said several liens 04 shall not in any- case exceed in amount the reasonable value ''"' of the labor done or material furnished, or both, for which the lien is claimed, nor the price agreed !l(! upon for the same between the claimant and the person by whom he was employed; nor in any case, where the claimant was employed by a contractor, or sub-contractor, shall the lien extend to any labor or materials not embraced within or covered ! ' 7 by the original contract !>s between the contractor and the owner, or any modification "'' thereof made by or 92 Limited to contract price: Lien a* limited by contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 58 459- 468; 85 315-318. as See following: language in this section, post: "It is the intent and purpose of this section to limit the owner's liability in all cases to the measure of the contract price" when he shall have filed bond with original contract, etc. See, also, 5 14 of the act of May 1, 1911 (Stats. & Am. Us. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.), post. 04 Lien an limited by contract: See, generally. Treatise and Supple- ment, {459-468, li 315-318, J 452-458. ee Reasonable value: See Treatise and Supplement, 456. Price agreed upon: See Treatise and Supplement, 456. 07 Embraced within or covered: Nature and manner of ue of material*: See Treatise and Supple- ment, { 87. How far ubclalmantM are bound by term* of original contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 8 318. 08 Original contract! Definition of original contract: See Treatise, 85 194. 211. General principle* applicable to building contract*: See Treatise and Supplement, 193-215. Construction of building contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 55 216-228. Common daune* peculiar to building contract*: See Treatise and Supplement. j!{ 229-257. Plan* and Specification*: See Treatise and Supplement, 55 309, 310, and Supplement, $8 129a et seq. Non-ntatutory original contract: See Treatise and Supplement, Si 258-268. Statutory original contract: Statutory requirement* not c**entlal to the validity of the whole tatutory original contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 58 269-285. Statutory requirement* ennentlal to the validity of *tatutory origi- nal contract*: See Treatise and Supplement, 88 286-314. Effect of validity or Invalidity of ntatutory original contract (Indi- rect or direct Hen): See Treatise and Supplement. 88 315-325. Extinction of original contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 89 326-360. 00 Modification of original contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 85326-332. See Index, tit. "Alteration," tit. "Contract." 333 APPENDIX. 1183 c. C. P. with the consent of such owner, and of which such contract, or modification thereof the claimant shall have had actual notice 10 before the performance of such labor or the fur- J^SJJ^ 11 of 1Ien nishing of such materials. The filing of such original con- JJJJJf. contract - tract, 101 or modification thereof, in the office of the county recorder of the county where the property is situated, before the commencement of the work, 102 shall be equivalent to the giving of such actual notice by the owner to all persons performing work or furnishing materials thereunder. In case said original contract shall, before the work is com- menced, be so filed, together with a bond 10: > of the con- and n bonTas act tractor with good and sufficient sureties in an amount not hmltatlon - less than fifty (50) per cent of the contract price 104 named in said contract, which bond shall in addition to any con- ditions for the performance of the contract, be also con- boi itlons ditioned for the payment in full of the claims of all persons performing labor upon or furnishing materials to be used in such work, and shall also by its terms be made to inure 105 to the benefit of any and all persons who perform labor upon or furnish materials to be used in the work described in said contract so as to give such persons a right of action to re- cover upon said bond 10(5 in any suit brought to foreclose 100 Notice: See Treatise and Supplement, 475. 101 I'll inn original contract: Compare filing of statutory original contract: Duty, necessity and object of filing: See Treatise and Supplement, 294, 296. See, also, 297-311. Time of filing statutory original contract: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 312. Place of filing statutory original contract: See Treatise, 313. 102 Before the commencement of the work: As to statutory original contract: See Treatise, 312. 103 Bond: Sureties, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 605-626. Contractor's bond: See Treatise and Supplement, 281-285. Constitutionality of bond: See Treatise, 39, 281. See Index, tit. "Bond," tit. "Bond of contractor." 104 Contract price: See Treatise and Supplement, 259-263. Implied contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 260. Contract price computable: See Treatise, 262. See Index, tit. "Contract price." 105 Inure: See Supplement, 606, 281. ice Recovery on bond: See Treatise and Supplement, 283. See note 103, this section, ante. Cumulative remedies: See Treatise and Supplement, 688. 1 183 C. C. P. APPENDIX. ; { ;; 4 the liens 10 ~ provided for in this chapter or in a separate suit brought on said bond, 10 * then the court must, where recovery 1 . 011 n ^ wou ld be equitable so to do, restrict the recovery under such liens to an aggregate amount equal to the amount found to be due from the owner to the contractor, 101 ' and render judgment against the contractor and his sureties on said ment'lTgainst 1 *" bond for any deficiency or difference there may remain be- uretfes. 01 ' and tween said amount so found to.be due to the contractor and the whole amount found to be due to claimants for such labor or materials or both. 110 No change or alteration of the Sfto^rVfease work 111 or modification of any such contract 11 - between the owner and his contractor shall release or exonerate any surety or sureties upon any bond given under this sec- tion.] 113 intent of section. It ^ ^ intent and purpose o f this section to limit the exte t nf C of 1 Vien. owner's liability, in all cases, to the measure of the contract 107 Action to foreclo*e Hen: Generally! See Treatise and Supplement, J$ 638-991. Cumulative remedies: See Treatise and Supplement, 638-644. Jurisdiction over bondmnan to render judgement: See Supplement, } 864. See, generally. Treatise and Supplement, {$ 638-991. Cumulative remedies: See Treatise and Supplement, Si 638-644. See Index, tit. "Remedies," tit. "Foreclosure of lien," tit. "Bond of contractor," and tit. "Bond." 108 Separate unit on bond: See note 107, this section, ante. See Index, tit. "Bond," tit. "Contractor's bond." 109 Amount found due eontractori See, generally, "Indirect lien," Treatise and Supplement, 5 10-14. 110 Deficiency Judgments See Treatise and Supplement, {922-925. What Involved, and what not Involved on appeal: See Treatise, 5 979. See Judgment or Decree, generally, Treatise and Supplement, | 903- 934. See Index, tit. "Deficiency Judgment," tit. "Judgment." 111 Alteration of works See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 326-332, and $ 247. See Index, tit. "Alteration," tit. "Architect." tit. "Extra work." 112 Modification of contract: See note 100, this section, ante. U3Releatie or exonerate nnrety"s See note 103, this section, ante. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement. J 326-332, and | 247. Cbanice* In contract autborlxed by contract: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 615. See note 87, this section, ante. See Index, tit. "Sureties," tit. "Contractor's bond," tit. "Bond."' 335 APPENDIX. 1183-1184 C. C. P. price 114< where he shall have filed or caused to be filed in good faith with his original contract a valid bond 115 with good and sufficient sureties 11(3 in the amount and upon the conditions as herein provided. It shall be lawful for the owner to protect himself against any failure of the contractor c> wner ' s security. to perform his contract and make full payment for all work done and materials furnished thereunder by exacting such bond 11T or other security 118 as he may deem satisfactory.] (In effect sixty days after May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.) 1183a was repealed by Stats. & Aindts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq. (In effect sixty days after May 1, 1911). 1184. Any of the persons mentioned in [the preceding ? 0t withhoil ne * section,] 1 except the contractor, may at any time give to w im ^ ^giving. [the owner a notice] 2 that they have performed labor or Contents of notlce - 11* See note 109, this section, ante. us Valid bond: Statutory bonds: See Treatise and Supplement, 608-612. Contractor's bond: Treatise and Supplement, 281-235. See Index, tit. "Bond," tit. "Contractor's bond," tit. "Surety," and tit. "Security." lie Good and sufficient sureties: See Treatise and Supplement, 606- 612. 117 Such bond: Statutory bonds: See Treatise and Supplement, 608-612. Contractor's bond: See Treatise and Supplement, 281-285. See Index, tit. "Bond," tit. "Contractor's Bond," tit. "Surety," and tit. "Security." us Other security: Common law bond: See Treatise and Supplement, 613. Surety, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 605-626. Waiver of lien by taking additional security: See Treatise 630. See Index, tit. "Surety," tit. "Security," tit. "Bond," and tit. "Con- tractor's bond." 1184 C. C. P. i Persons mentioned: See "Persons entitled," note 3 to 1183, C. C. P., ante. 2 Notice to withhold: See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 547-571. Historical: See Treatise, 548. Statutory provision: See Treatise, 549. Distinction between notice to owner to withhold and claim of lient See Treatise, 550. Object and nature of notice: See Treatise, 550. Notice to owner creating personal obligation: See Treatise, 551. Notice to owner, garnishment: See Treatise, 552. Provision when applicable: See Treatise, 553. Service of notice on public trustees: Se'e Treatise and Supplement, i 564. 1184C.C.P. APPENDIX. 336 Contents of notice. Owner may demand notice. Effect of refusal. Manner of giving notice. Defects. furnished materials, or both, to the contractor or other per- son acting by the authority of [the owner,] or that they have agreed to do so, :J stating 4 in general terms the kind of labor and materfals 5 and the name of the person to or for whom the same was done or furnished, or both, and the amount in value, as near as may be, of that already done or furnished, or both, 7 and of the whole agreed to be done or furnished, or both. 8 [and any of said persons who shall on the written demand of the owner refuse to give such notice shall thereby deprive himself of the right to claim a lien under this chapter]. 9 Such notice may be given by deliver- ing the same to [said owner] personally, or by leaving it at his residence or place of business with some person in charge, or by delivering it to his architect, or by leaving it at [the latter 's office] with some person in [charge. 10 No] such notice shall be invalid by reason of any defect in form, pro- vided it is sufficient to inform [the owner] of the substantial General rljilit* of owner upon nervlce of notlee: See Treatise and Supplement, f 554-564. Action on notice: See Treatise, i 567. Notice, when held Niifflclents See Treatise, I 571. See Index, tit. "Notice," tit. "Notice to owner," tit. "Owner, employer or person causing improvement." 3 See Treatise, 570. See note 2, ante, this section. See note 4, post, this section. 4 Form and content* of notlcei See Treatise and Supplement, ?$ 568- 671. Conntructlon of notice: See Treatise, 568. Effect of nevernl notice* nerved: See Treatise, 569. See note 2, ante, this section. 5 Kind of labor and material*: See notes 2, 3 and 4, ante, this sec- tion. See Treatise, f 570. 6 Name of the per*on: See notes 2, 3, 4 and 5, ante, this section. See Treatise, S 570. 7 Amount already furnl*hedt See notes 2-6, ante, this section. See Treatise, f 570. 8 Whole agreed to be furnl*hed: See notes 2-7, ante, this section. See Treatise, 5 571. o Forfeiture of lien: See Treatise and Supplement, ii 632, 633. Waiver of liens See Treatise and Supplement, 5 627-631. See Index, tit. "Forfeiture," tit. "Waiver." 10 Time of giving; notice: .See Treatise, {565. 337 APPENDIX. 1184, 1185 C. C, P. matters herein provided [for. 11 Upon] such notice being given it shall be [lawful for the owner to] withhold, 12 [and ^notice 1 owner in the case of property which, for reasons of public policy p ubiic property. or otherwise, [is] not subject to the liens in this chapter provided for, 13 the owner or person who contracted with the contractor, shall withhold] from his contractor sufficient money due or that may become due to such [contractor to] answer such claim and any lien that may be filed [therefor including the reasonable cost of any litigation thereunder]. 14 (In effect sixty days from and after May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.) 1185. The land J upon which any building, 2 improve- St"itof ll ilen. ment, 3 well 4 or structure 5 is constructed, together with a 11 Substantial matters: See Treatise and Supplement, 547-571. 12 Lawful for owner to withhold: General rights upon service of notice to withhold: See Treatise and Supplement, 554-564; 514. Duty to withhold payment: See Treatise, 525. See Index, tit. "Notice," tit. "Notice to owner," tit. "Owner," tit. "Owner, employer or person causing improvement." 13 Public property: Object of labor: See Treatise and Supplement, 192, 257. Service upon public trustees: See Treatise and Supplement, 564. Bond of contractor on public work: See Treatise and Supplement, i 626. See Index, tit. "Public property." tit. "Public trustee," tit. "Public work." 14 Costs and attorney's fees: See Treatise and Supplement, 935-947. See Index, tit. "Costs," tit. "Attorney's fees." 1185C. C. P. lLand: Territorial extent of Hen: See Treatise and Supplement, 438-446. 2 Building: Variable use of term: See Treatise, 170, note 9. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 174, 175. Ditch not a building: See Treatise, 177. Building as fixture: See Treatise, 186. See, generally, also, "Object on which labor must be performed": Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. Construction of contract with reference to: See Treatise, 220. See Index, tit. "Building." 3 Improvement : Definition: See Treatise, 141, 171. Distinct from land: See Treatise, 380, note. 4 Well: See Treatise and Supplement, 178. OH well: See Treatise and Supplement, 172. Contract to bore well holes, construed: See Treatise, 220. "Water-well: See Treatise, 705. Appurtenances to well: See Treatise, 440, note 7. Bloom's Sup. 22 1185C.C.P. APPENDIX. 338 Territorial convenient space about the same, or so much as may be re- quired for the convenient use and occupation thereof, 6 to be determined by the court on rendering judgment, 7 is also subject to the lien, if at the commencement of the work, or of the furnishing of the material for the same, the land belonged to the person who caused said building, improve- ment, well or structure to be constructed, 8 altered 9 or re- paired, 10 but if such person owned less than fee simple es- ^terestssubject tate in such land, then only his interest therein is subject to Hen. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. o First clau*e; Structure*; Before amendment of 1911: See Treatise and Supplement, 131-135. Importance of fixing elaune under which cane fall*: See Treatise and Supplement, 136. Structure* In general t See Treatise and Supplement, | 173. Structures enumerated In ntatutes See Treatise and Supplement, 175. Structure* not enumerated In xtatutei See Treatise and Supplement, 174. Structure* In mine*: See Treatise and Supplement, 8 191. See note 47, 1183. , See Index, tit. "Structure." o Land for convenient u*e and occupation; generally i See Treatise and Supplement, 440, 441. Evidence a* to extent of land nece**arys See Treatise and Supple- ment, i 769. Finding a* to land neceMnarys See Treatise, 885, note. Allegation of complaint an to land nece**arys See Treatise, 718. Decree a* to land nece**aryt See Treatise, 934. See Index, tit. "Convenient use and occupation." 7 Judgment: See Treatise, 934. Judgment, generally* See Treatise and Supplement, S 903-934. 8 Constructed: See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 88 144, 145, 148. Con*tructlon of mine: See Treatise and Supplement, 150. See "General nature of labor for which a lien is given": Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. 9 Altered: Character of alteration: See Treatise and Supplement, 146. Distinction between alteration and repair: See Treatise and Supple- ment, ^ 147. iti-i iiK'i itui betvreen alteration and erection: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 148. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 88 144, 145. General nature of labor for which a Hen I* given: See Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. See notes 30, 32, and 33, 8 1183. See Index, tit. "Alterations." 10 Repaired: Distinction between alteration and repair: See Treatise, 8 147. See, generally, Treatise, 144 and 145. 339 APPENDIX. H85 ) 118 6 c. c. P. to such lien, 11 [except as provided in section eleven hundred and ninety -two of this code]. 12 (In effect sixty days from and after May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.) 1186. The liens provided for in this chapter are pre- ferred 1 to any lien, mortgage, 2 or other encumbrance which "General nature of labor for which a lien is given": See Treatise and Supplement, 130-166. See Notes 30, 31, and 32, 1183, C. C. P. 11 Estates and interests subject to lien: I. By contract: Generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 459-468. General rule: See Treatise, 461. Fee or legal title subject: See Treatise and Supplement, 462. Same. Vendee being in possession: See Treatise and Supplement, 463. Same. Lessee being in possession: See Treatise and Supplement, 464. Same. Title held in trust: See Treatise and Supplement, 465. Interest of vendee in possession bound: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 466. Interest of vendee bound: See Treatise, 467. Homestead bound: See Treatise and Supplement, 468. See Index, tit. "Limitations of liens," tit. "Estates or interests," tit., "Homestead." Estates and interests subject to lien: II. By estoppel: Generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 469-485. General rule as to when notice of non-responsibility must be given: See Treatise and Supplement, 472. Purpose of provision: See Treatise, 474. Notice or knowledge of improvement: See Treatise and Supple-^ ment, 475. Notice to corporation as owner: See Treatise, 475. Lessee in possession making improvements: See Treatise, 477. Vendee in possession making improvements: See Treatise, 478. When notice not required: See Treatise, 479. When notice not required in case of mines and mining claims: See Treatise and Supplement, 480. Notice in case of grading: See Treatise and Supplement, 481. In case of prior liens: See Treatise, 482. Effect of knowledge of claimant of lack of authority of person mak- ing improvement: See Treatise, 483. Notice, when to be posted: See Treatise and Supplement, 484. Notice, how posted: See Treatise, 485. See note 11 to 1183, C. C. P., ante, and notes to 1192, C. C. P., post. 12 Notice of non-responsibility: See note 11, 1185, C. C. P., ante; and see notes to 1192, C. C. P., post. 1186 C. C. P. i Priorities; generally: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 486-507. See notes to 1188, C. C. P., post. Priorities between mechanics' liens and other estates and interests, or other classes of liens: See Treatise and Supplement, 487-503. 1186, 1187 C. C. P. 340 mav have attacned subsequent to the time when the build- ' ng ' i m P rovement , or structure was commenced, work done, or materials were^ commenced to be furnished ; 3 also, to any lien, mortgage, or other encumbrance of which the lien- holder had no notice, 4 and which was unrecorded at the time the building, improvement, or structure was commenced, work done, or the materials were commenced to be furnished. (Enacted March 11, 1872.) ^f l iien whlch 1187 - Every original contractor. 1 [claiming the benefit of this chapter,] within [sixty days] after the completion of his [contract, and] every person save the original contractor claiming the benefit of this chapter, [within thirty days after he has ceased to labor or has ceased to furnish ma- terials, or both; or at his option, within thirty days after the completion of the original contract, ! if any, under Statutory ntatement of rule: See Treatise, 488. General :m:il>sis of provision: See Treatise, ? 489. Grant* and conveyance** See Treatise, 5 490. General rule an to priorities* See Treatise, | 495. Priorities Inter *ee: See Treatise and Supplement, ? 504-507. See Index, tit. "Priorities," tit. "Mortgage." 2 Mortgage: Mortgage for purchase prlcet See Treatise, 496. Mortgage for future advancent See Treatise, 5 497. What conntltute* further advances: See Treatise, 499. When lien claimant* may attack prior encumbrance*: See Trea- tise, 500. See Index, tit. "Priorities," tit. "Mortgage." 3 Doctrine of relation: See Treatise, $491. See Index, tit. "Relation." ' See Treatise, 490. JI187C. C. P. i Contractor: Constitutional and leglnlatlve clarifi- cation*! See Treatise and Supplement, SS 28 and 42. Definition of original contractor: See Treatise and Supplement, J45. Tent* or original contractor: See Treatise and Supplement, | 46-59. Dl*tlnctlon between original contractor and material-man: See Treatise and Supplement, if 60, 77, 79 and 80. General right* of original contractor: See Treatise and Supplement, ei-63. General obligation* of original contractor*: See Treatise and Sup- plement, {{ 64, 65. See Index, tit. "Original contractor." 2 Time of filing claim of lien: See, generally, Treatise and Supple- ment. 55 422-437. See Index, tit. "Claim of Hen," tit. "Time." 3 Original contract! Completion of contract; *ub*tantlal and actual completion: See Treatise and Supplement, 8 431. 341 APPENDIX. 1187; C C p which he was employed,] must file for record with the county Place of recorder of the county or city and county 4 in which such property or some part thereof is situated a claim of lien 5 containing a statement of his demand after deducting all ciaim nts f just credits and offsets, 6 with the name of the owner or reputed owner, 7 if known, also the name of the person by whom he was employed, 8 or to whom he furnished the ma- terials, 9 with a statement of the 10 [price if any agreed upon for the same and when payable, 11 and of the work agreed to be done and when the same was to be done, if agreed upon,] 12 and also a description of the property to be charged with the lien, sufficient for identification, 13 which claim must Performance of contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 334-347. Statutory equivalents of completion for the purpose of filing; claims of lien: See Treatise and Supplement, 348-357. Original contract; definition: See Treatise, 211. See Index, tit. "Performance," tit. "Performance of contract." 4 Place of filing claim of lien for record: See Treatise, 420. See Index, tit. "Claim of lien." 5 Claim of lien: Nature, necessity, purpose: See Treatise and Supplement, 361-367. Contents, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 370-415. See Index, tit. "Claim of lien." 6 Statement of demand after deducting all just credits and offsets: See Treatise and Supplement, 375-378. Object of provision: See Treatise and Supplement, 376. Demands against two or more buildings: See Treatise, 378, and see 1188, C. C. P., post, and notes. See Index, tit. "Statement." 7 Name of owner or reputed owner: See Treatise and Supplement, 380-386. See Index, tit. "Claim of lien," tit. "Name of owner," tit. "Names required to be stated in claim of lien." 8 Name of employer: See Treatise, 381.' 9 Purchaser: See Treatise, 381. See Index, tit. "Claim of lien," tit. "Names required to be stated in claim of lien." 10 Statement of price: Compare "Terms, time given and conditions of contract": Treatise and Supplement, 387-398. "Price," "Value": See Treatise, 456. See Index, tit. "Claim of lien," tit. "Price." 11 See "Terms, time given and conditions of contract," Treatise and Supplement, 387-398. 12 See "Terms, time given and conditions of contract," Treatise and Supplement, 387-398. Nature of labor: See Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. is Description of property: See Treatise and Supplement, 399-407. Object of provision: See Treatise, 401. General rule: See Treatise, 402. Special applications; false calls: See Treatise and Supplement, 403. 1187C. C.P. APPENDIX. Verification of claim. What deemed completion. be verified by the oath of himself or of some other [person. 14 Any] trivial imperfection ir> in the said work, or in the [com- pletion of any contract by any lien claimant, or in the] con- st ruction of any building, improvement or structure, 16 or of the alteration, addition to, or repair thereof, 17 shall not be Property Identified by name or exelimlve character: See Treatise, i 404. lii-si-ri|itiiiii IIH Including; too much or too little: See Treatise, {405. Two or more deMcrlptlonii: See Treatise, 406. And see $1188, C. C. P., post, and notes. Application of provision an to demand* against separate building"' See Treatise, 407. And see { 1189, C. C. P., post, and notes. See Index, tit. "Description." 14 Verification: See Treatise and Supplement, { 410. is Trifling Imperfection! See Treatise and Supplement, {341. s ii list initial performance: See Treatise and Supplement, | 342, 431. General principles: See Treatise and Supplement, 343. Slight difference In value: See Treatise and Supplement, $ 344. Conveniences: See Treatise and Supplement, i 345. Abandonment: See Treatise and Supplement, $$ 358-360. Performance of contract, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, Si 334-360. Itnililiiiu. Improvement or Mtructure: Ilulldlng; variable line of term: See Treatise, $ 170, note 9. See, generally. Treatise and Supplement, 8 174 and 175. Hitch not a building: See Treatise, $ 177. Building an fixture: See Treatise, $ 186. See, generally, also, "Object on which labor must be performed." Treatise and Supplement, $f 166-192. ConNtructlon of contract with reference to: See Treatise, $ 220. See Index, tit. "Building." Improvement: See 1185, C. C. P., note 3, ante. 17 Alteration: Character of alteration: See Treatise and Supplement, 146. DlNtlnctlon between alteration and repair: See Treatise and Sup- plement, $ 147. Distinction between alteration and erection: See Treatise and Sup- plement, f 148. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, fit 144, 145. General nature of labor for which a lien IN given: See Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. See notes 30, 32, and 33, { 1183, C. C. P., ante. See Index, tit. "Alterations." Addition to: See Treatise and Supplement, $ 144. Construction of contracts as to "addition": See Treatise and Sup- plement, } 220. See notes 30, 31, and 33, $ 1183, C. C. P., ante. Repair: Distinction between alteration and repair: See Treatise, { 147. See, generally. Treatise, 144 and 145. General nature of labor for which a lien Is given: See Treatise and Supplement. fS 130-166. See notes 30, 31, and 32, $ 1183, C. C. P., ante. 343 APPENDIX. 1187 P. deemed such a lack of completion as to prevent the filing of any lien; and, in all cases, [any of the following shall be deemed equivalent to a completion for all the purposes of ^^p^tfon 8 f this chapter:] the occupation or use of a building, improve- ment, or structure, by the owner, or his representative; 18 or the acceptance by said owner or said agent, of said build- ing, improvement, or structure, 19 [or] cessation from labor for thirty days upon any contract or upon any building, im- provement or structure or the alteration, addition to, or repair [thereof; 20 the filing of the notice hereinafter pro- vided for]. 21 The [owner may] within ten days [after completion] of noticeof fllins [any contract] 22 or within forty days after cessation from labor [thereon,] 23 file for record in the office of the county labor - by owner - recorder of the [county where the property] is situated, 24 is Occupation or use of building: Statutory equivalents of completion, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 348-357. Scope and object of provision: See Treatise, 350. Character of occupation or use: See Treatise, 351. Acceptance; waiver: See Treatise and Supplement, 353. 19 Acceptance of building, improvement or structure: See preceding note. 20 Cessation from labor: Statutory equivalents of completion; generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 348-357. Cessation from labor for thirty days: See Treatise and Supplement, 354. Scope of provision: See Treatise, 355. Character of cessation: See Treatise, 356. 1 Notice of completion or cessation from labor; generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 425-429. Purpose and scope of provision: See Treatise, 426. Failure of owner to file notice: See Treatise and Supplement, 427. In case of structures: See Treatise, 428. General rule: See Treatise, 429. 22 Completion of contract: Building contracts; generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 193- 360. Performance of contract: See Treatise and Supplement, 334-347. See note 21 to 1187, C. C. P., ante. 23 Cessation of labor; generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 354-357. See note 21 to 1187, C. C. P., ante. 24 Compare "Place of filing claim of lien": Treatise and Supple- ment, 420. Filing notice of completion or cessation: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 425-429. See note 21 to 1187, C. C. P., ante. 1187, 1188 C.C. P. APPENDIX. 344 Contents of notice of completion or cessation. Pee for recording:. Failure to file notice, estoppel. Claims against two or more properties. a notice setting forth the date when [the same was com- pleted,] or [on which] cessation from [labor occurred,-"' together with his name and the nature of his title, and] a description of the property sufficient for identification, 20 which notice shall be verified by [himself] or some other person on his behalf. 27 [The fee for recording the same shall be one dollar.] In case [such notice be not so filed] then the said owner and all persons deraigning title from or claiming [any interest through] him shall be estopped 28 in any pro- ceedings [for the foreclosure of any lien provided] for in this chapter from maintaining any defense therein based on the ground that said [lien was not] filed within the time provided in this chapter ; 2f> [provided, that all claims of lien must be filed within ninety days after the completion of any building, improvement or structure, :JO or the alteration, ad- dition or repair thereto]. 31 (In effect sixty days after May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.) 1188. In every case in which one claim is filed against two or more buildings, mining claims, or other improvements owned by the same person, the person filing such claim must at the same time designate the amount due to him on each of such buildings, mining claims, or other improvements; 1 otherwise, the lien of such claim is postponed to other liens. 2 25 Notice of completion or cessation: See Treatise and Supplement, {425-428. See note 21 to 1187, C. C. P., ante. 20 Description of property sufficient for Identification: See Treatise and Supplement, ! 369-407. See note 21 to 1187, C. C. P., ante. 27 Verification: See Treatise and Supplement, 410. 28 Estoppel: See Treatise and Supplement, 469-471. See note 21 to 1187, C. C. P., ante. See Index, tit. "Estoppel." 20 Failure of owner to file notice: See Treatise and Supplement, I 427. See note 21 to 1187, C. C. P., ante. 30 Building, Improvement or ntructnre: See note 16, this section, ante. si See note 17, this section, ante. f 1188 C. C. P. 1 Building;*, mining: claims or other Improvement*!: Object on which labor must be done; generally: gee Treatise and Supplement, 166-192. 2 Claim against two or more buildings; generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 502. When provision applicable: See Treatise, 503. 345 APPENDIX. 1188-11900. C. P. The lien of such claimant does not extend beyond the amount Priorities, designated, as against other creditors having liens, by judg- ment, mortgage, or otherwise, upon either of such buildings or other improvements, or upon the land upon which the same are situated. 3 (Enacted March 11, 1872.) 1189. The recorder must record the claim in a book Recording claim, kept by him for that purpose, 1 which record must be in- dexed as deeds and other conveyances are required by law to be indexed, and for which he may receive the same fees Feesf InS ' as are allowed by law for recording deeds and other instru- ments. 2 (Enacted March 11, 1872.) 1190. No lien provided for in this chapter binds any Limitation on lien. [property] for a longer period than ninety days after the same has been filed, 1 unless proceedings be commenced in a m^cing action proper court within that time to enforce the same ; 2 or, if a to foreclose - Claim against two or more buildings or mining claims: See Treatise and Supplement, 378, 406. Distinct objects on one parcel of land: See Treatise, 448. Necessity of one or more claims of Hen: See Treatise, 366. Claim against several objects and pieces of property: See Treatise, ! 368. Priorities inter sese: See Treatise and Supplement, 504-507. 3 See note 1, this section, ante. Priorities, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 486-507. 1189 C. C. P. i Recording claim of lien: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 365. Purpose of filing claim within a certain time: See Treatise and Supplement, 418, 419. Place of filing claim for record: See Treatise, 420. Removal of claim from recorder's office: See Treatise, 420. Recorder's endorsement of filing prima facie evidence: See Trea- tise, 795. 2 Indexing claim of lien: See Index Supplement, tit. "Index." 1190 C. C. P. i Time of commencing action to foreclose: See Trea- tise and Supplement, 649, 650. General rule: See Treatise, 649. Amending complaint; doctrine of relation: See Treatise, 649. Debt must be payable: See Treatise, 649. Credit given: See Treatise, 649. Action to foreclose Hen upon fund: See Treatise, 650. See Index, tit. "Time," tit. "Time, place and manner of commencing action to foreclose lien." 2 Place of commencing action to foreclose: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 651-655. Generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 651. Jurisdiction of the Superior Court: See Treatise and Supplement, 653. Amount less than jurisdictlonal amount: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 654. Foreclosure in Federal Courts: See Treatise and Supplement, 655. 1190. 1 191 (.'. (.'. P. APPENDIX. 346 Time of com- mencing action to foreclose. Dismissal for want of prosecution. Lien for grading, or improving lot, sidewalk or street. credit be given, then nim-ty .lays nl'trr the expiration of sm-li credit ; 3 but no lien continues in force for a longer time than [one year] from the time the work is completed, by any agreement to give credit, [and in case such proceedings be not prosecuted to trial within two years after the commence- ment thereof, the court may in its discretion dismiss the same for want of prosecution, and in all cases the dismissal of such action (unless it be expressly stated that the same is without prejudice) or a judgment rendered therein that no lien exists, shall be equivalent to the cancellation and re- moval from the record of such lien]. (In effect sixty days from and after May 1, 1911, Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.) 1191. Any person who, at the request of the reputed owner 1 of any lot in any incorporated city or town, 2 grades, fills in, or otherwise improves the same, 3 or the street or sidewalk in front of or adjoining the same, 4 or constructs any areas or vaults, or cellars, or rooms, under said side- walks, or makes any improvements in connection therewith 5 has a lien upon said lot for his work done and materials 3 Giving credltt See Treatise, S 649. 4 Release of Hen: See Treatise and Supplement, US 634-637. Decree, v generally: See Treatise and Supplement, i 903-934. 1191C. C. P. 1 Request of reputed owner: Owner and reputed owner: See Treatise, 509. Power of reputed owner; estoppels See Treatise, $ 34. Lien Imponed by merely reputed owner, unconstitutional: See Trea- tise, $ 34. See Index, tit. "Street work," tit. "Street improvement." 2 Definition of "lot": See Treatise and Supplement, J 184, notes. Object on which labor must be performed: See Treatise and Sup- plement, $ 184. 3 Improve; meaning of term: See Treatise and Supplement, 141, 142. 156, 158, and 437. See note 5, this section. 4 Sidewalk: See Treatise and Supplement, $ 184. System of sewers: See Treatise, $ 184. Extent of Hen on "lot": See Treatise, 446. 5 Improvement In connection therewith: Improvements: See Treatise, $ 158. "Therewith": See Treatise, { 159. Work not under this section: See Treatise, I 157. As to Hen of material-man: See Treatise, 97. See note 3, this section. 347 APPENDIX. 1191-11920. C. P. furnished. 6 (Amended March 15, 1887, Stats. & Amdts. 1886-7, p. 155.) 1191a. Any health officer or governing board of any city, town or sanitary district, having served written notice upon the owner or reputed owner l of real estate upon which there is a dwelling house, and such owner or reputed owner, after thirty days, having refused, neglected or failed to connect such dwelling house, together with all toilets, sinks and other plumbing therein, properly vented, and in a sani- tary manner, with the adjoining street sewer, may construct [^dwelling- e the same at a reasonable cost, and the person doing said house with s ^ e work at the request of such health officer or governing board, has a lien upon said real estate for his work done and ma- terials furnished, 2 and such work done and materials fur- nished shall be held to have been done and furnished at the instance of such owner or reputed owner, or person claiming or having any interest therein. (In effect sixty days from and after April 19, 1909, Stats. 1909, chap. 653.) 1192. Every building or other improvement * [or work] mentioned in [any of the preceding sections of this chapter] 6 Grading and other work under this section, generally: See Trea- tise and Supplement, 139-142, 156-160. Extent of Hen: See Treatise, 446. Relation to work on "structures": See Treatise, 159. 1191 a C. C. P. i Owner, generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 508-571. General rights of owner and employer: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 510-522. General obligations of owner: See Treatise, 523-546. Owner and reputed owner: See Treatise and Supplement, 509. Liability of owner upon statutory notice to withhold: See Treatise and Supplement, 547-571. See Index, tit. "Exhastive," tit. "Owner," tit. "Owner, Employer or Person causing improvement." 2 Labor for which a lien is given: See Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. Materials: Distinction between labor contract and contract for material: See Treatise and Supplement, 59, 80, and 83. Nature of materials, when lien allowed and when not: See, gen- erally, Treatise and Supplement, 87-91. Package of material: See Treatise and Supplement, 90. Carriage charges: See Treatise and Supplement, 91. See Index, tit. "Materials," tit. "Material-man." 1192 C. C. P. i Building or improvement; variable use of terms: See Treatise 170, note 9, 141, 158, 171. See generally Treatise and Supplement, 174 and 175! Ditch not a building: See Treatise, 177. 1192C. ('. P. APPKNI.IX 348 constructed, [altered or repaired] - upon any land with the u> r a 8 gencyfor a * knowledge of the owner 3 or [of any] person having or claim- owner, ing any [estate]- therein, 4 and the work or [labor done or] KiiililiiiK as fixtures See Treatise, $ 186. See generally also "Object on which labor must be performed," Treatise and Supplement, {{ 166-192. Count ruction of contract, with reference tot See Treatise, I 220. See Index, tu. "Building 1 "; tit. "Improvement." 2 Conntructloni See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, SS 144 and 145, and { 148. Construction of mine: See Treatise and Supplement, f 150. General nature of labor for which a Hen In given > See Treatise and Supplement, 130-165. Alteration! Character of alteration* See Treatise and Supple- ment, { 146. Dlittlnctlon between alteration anil repairs See Treatise and Sup- plement, i 147. i)i-i inci inn between alteration and erection! See Treatise and Sup- plement, S 148. See, generally, Treatise and Supplement, 8 144, 145. General nature of labor for which a lien In given! See Treatise and Supplement, f$ 130-165. See notes 30, 32 and 33, $ 1183. See Index, tit. "Alterations"; tit. "Construction, alteration and repair." Repair! Distinction between alteration and repairs See Treatise 1147. See, generally. Treatise, $ 144 and 145. General nature of labor for which a Hen In given ! See Treatise and Supplement, 130-166. See notes 30, 31 and 32, 1183, C. C. P. Owner! See generally. Treatise and Supplement, i 508-571. General riul>(- of owner and employers See Treatise and Supple- ment, fi 510-522. General obligation of owners See Treatise, if 523-546. Owner anil reputed owner! See Treatise and Supplement, f 509. Liability of owner upon statutory notice to withhold! See Treatise and Supplement, { 547-571. See Index, tit. "Owner"; tit. "Owner, Emloyer or Person causing improvement." < Estates and Interest* subject to Hen! I. By Contract! Generally! See Treatise and Supplement, !S 459-468. General rules See Treatise, f 461. Fee or legal title subjects See Treatise and Supplement, | 462. Snme. Vendee being In possessions See Treatise and Supplement, { 463. Same. Lessee being In possession: See Treatise and Supplement, S 464. Same. Title held In trust! See Treatise and Supplement, { 465. Interest of vendee In possession bounds See Treatise and Supple- ment, 466. Interest of vendee bound! See Treatise, $ 467. Homestead bound < See Treatise and Supplement, ! 468. 349 APPENDIX. 1192C. C.P. materials furnished mentioned in [any of] said [sections 3 with] the knowledge of the owner or persons having or claiming any [estate in the land,] shall be held to have been constructed, performed or furnished at the instance of such owner or person having or claiming any [estate] therein, and [such] interest owned or claimed shall be subject to any lien filed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, 6 unless such owner or person having or claiming any [estate] therein shall, within ten days after he shall have obtained See Index, tit. "Limitations of liens," tit. "Estates or interests," tit. "Homestead." Estates and interests subject to lien: II. By Estoppel: Generally: See Treatise and Supplement, 469-485. General rule as to when notice of non-responsibility innst be give*: See Treatise and Supplement, 472. Purpose of provision: See Treatise, 474. Notice or knowledge of improvement: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 475. Notice to corporation as owner: See Treatise, 475. Lessee in possession making Improvements: See Treatise, 477. Vendee in possession making improvements: See Treatise, 478. When notice not required: See Treatise, 479. When notice not required in case of mines and mining claims: See Treatise and Supplement, 480. Notice in case of grading: See Treatise and Supplement, 481. In case of prior liens: See Treatise, 482. Effect of knowledge of claimant of lack of authority of person making improvement: See Treatise, 483. Notice, when to be posted: See Treatise and Supplement, 484. Notice, how posted: See Treatise, | 485. See note 11 to 1183, C. C. P., ante. 5 Labor for which a lien is given; generally: See Treatise and Sup- plement, 166-192. Materials: Distinction between labor contract and contract for material: See Treatise and Supplement, 59, 80 and 83. Nature of materials, when lien allowed and when not: See, gen- erally, Treatise and Supplement, 87-91. Package of material: See Treatise and Supplement, 90. Carriage charges: See Treatise and Supplement, 91. See Index, tit. "Materials," tit. "Material-man." Use of materials; contract for use of materials: See Treatise and Supplement, 82. General essentials: See Treatise and Supplement, 86. Nature and manner of use of materials: See Treatise and Supple- ment, 87. Materials, how used: See Treatise and Supplement, 89. See Index, tit. "Materials," tit. "Material-man," and tit. "Use of ma- terials." e See note 4, this section, ante. Presumption as to agency for owner. Duty of owner to post and record notice of non- responsibility on obtaining knowledge of work. ^ 1 192, 1193 C. C. P. APPENDIX. Notice of non- responsibility. Contents of notice. Verification. Recovery on contractor's lien. knowledge of such construction, alteration or repair " or work or labor, give notice that he will not be responsible for the same 8 by posting a notice in writing to that effect in some conspicuous place upon tin* [property, '' and shall also, within the same period, file for record a verified] 10 copy of [said] notice in the office of the county recorder of the [said county in which said property or some part thereof is situated]. [Said notice shall contain a description of the property affected thereby sufficient for identification, l ' with the name, 1 - and the nature of the title or interest of the per- son giving the same, said copy so recorded may be verified by anyone having a knowledge of the facts, on behalf of the owner or person for whose protection the notice is given.] (In effect sixty days from and after May 1, 1911. Stats. & Amdts. 1911, pp. 1313 et seq.) 1193. [Any] contractor 1 shall be entitled to recover, upon a lien filed by him, only such amount as may be due to him according to the terms of his contract, 2 after deducting 7 See note 2, this section, ante. 8 See note 4, this section, ante. o Property;