title:
Dexter Horton & Co. Bankers Appellant vs. J. M. Sparkman, D. A. McDonald, Wm Riechers, Wm Kimery, and W. B. Morris Appellees, Brief of Appellees
title:
122
creator:
J. M. Sparkman
creator:
D. A. McDonald
creator:
William Riechers
creator:
William Kemery
creator:
W. B. Morris
contributor:
I. A. Murchison
date:
1890-07
publisher:
Washington State Supreme Court
type:
Civil
subject:
Contracts
subject:
Remedies
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: Appeal from Superior Court, Kitsap County.Liens – Manufacturing Lumber – Notice – Description – Verification – Default – Judgment – A notice of claim of lien “for labor performed in manufacturing lumber,” which describes the lumber as “being about 100,000 feet which was manufactured in Kitsap county, Washington state, and which is marked thus_____, and is now lying at the saw-mill owned by said Builders’ Material Co. in Kitsap Co., the same being the place where said lumber was manufactured, and situated about two miles south of Port Blakely, on Puget Sound,” complies with the statute giving a lien for “manufacturing saw-logs into lumber,” and requiring a description of the property “sufficient for identification with reasonable certainty.”The lien given by statute is personal to the laborer; and where the laborer combines with his own claim one assigned him by another laborer, he loses all right to take benefit of the foreclosure.No lien is given by statute for the manufacture of shingles, and where the notice is for manufacturing lumber and shingles, without showing how much is due for labor on the lumber and how much on the shingles, the whole lien fails.Where a claim of lien is verified by another than the claimant, a verification to the effect that he believes it to be true is sufficient.Where plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they had filed a lien upon certain lumber and shingles, but the copies of liens forming part of the complaint show that liens were not claimed upon the shingles, the answer of defendant specifically denying all the allegations of the complaint, and setting up as a new defense that the shingles were cut and sawed from shingle bolts made by other parties than the plaintiffs, to which plaintiffs file no reply, does not entitle defendant to judgment on the pleadings.It is error to render judgment against a party who makes default before the default has been entered.Although the owner of the lumber and shingles may have made default, the holder of a chattel mortgage thereon, impleaded as defendant, wo has answered denying all the plaintiff’s allegations, is entitled to a trial.A judgment awarding liens on the shingles not mentioned in the claim of lien is erroneous.
relation:
Dexter, Horton & Co. v. Sparkman, 2 Wash. 165 (1891)
relation:
25 P. 1070
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf
