It Is The Law

It Is The Law.

Knowledge not Contract Necessary to a Lien

The Common Pleas Court of New York city holds that where work is done on and materials furnished for a building with the knowledge and consent of the owner a lien may be obtained for same although the party claiming it made no contract with the owner. Marshall vs. Cohen, 32 N. Y. S. Rep., 283.

Mechanic's Lien for Building on Leased Land.

-Where a contract to lease provides that the lessee shall erect a building on the premises, the lessor agreeing to pay the costs of such building by permitting him to retain the rents, lessee erects the building as the agent of the lessor, so as to render mechanic's lien a charge on the interest of the lessor in the land. Kremer vs. Walton, Sup. Ct. Washington, 39 Pac. Rep., 374.

Rights of Sub-Contractors to Lien.

-Sub-contractors being unable to complete their contract wrote the contractors a letter authorizing them to take charge of the work and "complete the same for our account" and that "we do not waive by this our rights under the original contract, for any extra work accruing from same." The Supreme Court, second department, of New York, held that the contractors by proceeding with the work only assumed to finish it for the contractors, and on completion the cost was to be deducted from the contract price, before anything would become due to the sub-contractors to which a lien would attach. Brainard vs. Kings County, 32 N. Y. S. Rep. 311.

Order by Contractor and Mechanic's Liens.

-After a contractor had given to a sub-contractor an order on the owner he abandoned by contract, and the owner completed the building under a clause in the contract authorizing him to do so in default of the contract, and to deduct the cost of completion from any moneys due the contractor. The order has been presented prior to the filing of any liens; and the Supreme Court, first department of New York held that such order was an assignment for so much of the balance due the contractor, after deducting for cost of completion, and was entitled to a preference over liens filed after its presentation to the owner. Murray vs. Micolino, 31 N. Y. X. Rep. 1109.

Payment of Contractor by Check.

-Where parties upon being sued by a contractor alleged that they had given him a check in full payment of all claims under his contract, and a statement to that effect appeared on the face of the check; but the contractor denied that he had so accepted it and testified that the party who gave it to him had said that he would receive a further payment, and also that the supervising architect advised its acceptance, saying they would pay him in full afterwards, and this was corroborated by the architect, the Supreme Court of Washington held that the question of whether the check was given and received as full satisfaction was for the jury to determine.

Megrath vs. Gilmore, 39 Pacific Rep., 131.

Presumption of Negligence in Erection of a Building.

-Where a person lawfully upon a sidewalk is injured by materials falling from a building in the course of erection, and it appears that the sidewalk was not covered or in any way guarded, it is sufficient to raise presumption that the builder was negligent. This rule is necessary for the protection of those having occasion to use sidewalks of public streets. The evidence as to how the accident occurred is most usually wholly within the knowledge of the builder and his employes, (sic) and the person injured has no means of proving precisely how or why the accident occurred. The first warning of danger that he has is his injury, and then he has no opportunity to investigate the cause. William Ottman & Company vs. Robbins, Sup. Ct. first Dep., 32 N. Y. S. Rep. 61.

[Top of Page]