Case ID: ohio-np-ns_12/html/0078-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Martin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MECHANICS' LIENS.
    Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County.
    Edward Herbst v. W. J. Conners et al.
    Decided, May 31, 1911.
    
      Pleading — In a'Proceeding to Foreclose a Mechanic’s Lien — Filing of One Lien Not Sufficient, When — Construction of Section 8S08.
    
    1. Where more than one building has been erected on different lots, it is not sufficient that but one mechanic’s lien be filed for all the buildings, unless the lots upon which the buildings stand are contiguous.
    2. In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the petition should be definite as to whether the work was performed under a general contract and also as to whether or not the lots upon which the building or buildings stand are contiguous.
    
      James Knight and Flatau & Lindsey, for plaintiff.
    
      Thomas & Bronson, for the Equitable Savings & Loan Association.
   Martin, J.

In this case there has been a demurrer filed to the second cause of action. The second cause of action in this case sets forth facts showing that *a mechanic’s lien has been filed on certain lots, and on these facts set forth in said second cause of action plaintiff asks for foreclosure of said lien. This demurrer is based upon the ground that where there is more than one building erected on lots which are not contiguous a mechanic’s lien should be filed for each and every building upon the lots upon which such buildings are erected. Section 8308 of the General Code of Ohio provides for the filing of a lien upon any building and the land upon which said building may stand for the work or labor of erecting, altering, repairing, or moving said building. In other words, the lien shall extend to no other land except the land upon which the house or structure stands which is erected. Section 8311 provides that when the improvement consists of two or more buildings united together upon the same lot or contiguous lots, or of several buildings upon contiguous lots, but erected under one general contract, it shall not be necessary to file a separate lien upon each building for the work done! This section was evidently passed for the purpose of modifying the former section, which provided that the lien could only be placed upon the land upon which the building was erected and no other land. So. that the law is very clear that when more than one building is erected upon different lots, those lots must be eon-" tiguous if but one lien is to be filed for all the buildings.

In the second cause of action it appears that there were a number of houses and buildings erected for the defendant, Conners. It also appears in the same cause of action that the numbers given to the lots are not consecutive. In other words, judging by the customary way in which lots are numbered there must have been nine lots between lot number 34 and lot number 44. But the fact that they are attempting to foreclose the lien on these lots, and that they aver that the contract was for more than one building, and that the lots are not consecutively numbered does not necessarily mean that they are seeking to foreclose on more than one building or that the lots are not contiguous, but it does create an inference amounting almost to such a presumption, and although the court does not feel that it would be justified in sustaining this demurrer as a demurrer, it -feels it should sustain the same as a motion to make said second cause of action more definite and certain so as to bring it more clearly under the modification set forth in Section 8311 of the General Code as to being a general contract and as to whether or not the lots are contiguous.

The demurrer will be sustained as a motion to make more definite and certain.