Case ID: dc_8/html/0652-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TUCKER & SHERMAN vs. JAMES M. ORMES AND CATHARINE SHYNE.
    I. Testimony of witnesses tending to show an alteration in the name of the grantee in a conveyance of real property will not affect the validity of the deed when no such alteration appears upon its face, and when it is evident that the witnesses are laboring under an obvious and palpable mistake.
    II. A mechanic’s lien under our statute begins only from the time of filing the notice, and a purchaser at any time before such notice is filed takes a good title.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    The complainants, Tucker & Sherman, filed notice of a mechanic’s lien on the 20th day of January, 1872, and in the following August commenced this suit to enforce the same, and in December a decree was passed under which the trustees sold lot 235, in Gilbert’s subdivision of square 675, in the city of Washington, to said Tucker & Sherman. The materials in the account of the complainants were furnished the defendant James M. Ormes, for the construction of eighteen buildings, one of which was situated on the above-mentioned lot.
    For the purpose of setting aside the decree and the sale under it, Catharine Shyne intervened with her petition in said suit, on the 6th day of January, 1874, upon the ground that she had purchased the property from the said James M. Ormes on the 25th day of September, 1871, and before the complainants had filed their notice of lien. In their answer to this petition the complainants deny the conveyance to Mrs. Shyne, and state that on or about the first of August, 1871, the said defendant James M. Ormes was the owner in fee of the premises described in said petition and was engaged in erecting buildings thereon, and that during said month of August the said Ormes purchased of these plaintiffs certain materials for said buildings and continued to purchase such materials as he needed for the construction of said buildings from time to time until the following January, when the purchase by said Ormes of materials for said houses from said plaintiffs, and which were used in the construction of the same, amounted to the sum of about three thousand nine hundred and seventy-one dollars, all of which remained unpaid except the sum of about thirteen hundred and forty-seven dollars, leaving a balance due these plaintiffs of about twenty-six hundred and fourteen dollars, for which last sum these plaintiffs on the 20th day of January, 1872, filed their lien against said lots, and subsequently such proceedings-were had as resulted in the sale of the lots and improvements as stated in said petition.
    The facts are, as shown by the evidence, that Mrs. Shyne was the owner of part of a lot on F street in said city of Washington, and that said James M. Ormes owned three lots on K street, and among them the one now in controversy. B. F. Gilbert entered into an agreement with Ormes some time in September to exchange certain property for three lots. Some time in November following Gilbert agreed with Mrs. Shyne to exchange these lots for the property which she owned on F street, and in order to save a multiplicity of deeds it was arranged that Ormes should convey direct to Mrs. Shyne, which was accordingly done. The consideration paid by Mrs. Shyne was the sum of $22,500, and the deed from Ormes to her was not actually delivered until the 11th day of December, Í871, which would be upward of five weeks before the mechanics’ lien was filed. The complainants claim that the deed from Ormes was first made out to Gilbert, and that there was an erasure of Gilbert’s name as grantee, and that of Catharine Shyne inserted in his stead j but the deed was produced, and it shows no such alteration on its face, and no erasure has been made in the grantee’s name. Upon this showing the court below set aside the sale, and the case is now here on appeal from that decree.
    
      J. Daniels for complainants.
    N. F. Cleary for Mrs. Shyne.
   By the Court :

We think the decree setting aside the sale ought to be affirmed. The complainants’ notice of lien was not filed in the clerk’s office until upwards "of five weeks after Catharine Shyne had purchased the property for a large consideration. She was, therefore, the owner of the title long before Tucker & Sherman had any lien whatever. We repeat our ruling made at the last general term, to the effect that a mechanic’s lien under our statute begins only from the time of filing the notice, and that a purchaser at any time before such notice is filed takes a good title. Cotton et al. vs. Holden, ante, page 463.

We also hold that the testimony of witnesses tending to show an alteration in the name of the grantee in the conveyance to Mrs. Shyne does not affect the validity of the deed, as no such alteration appears upon its face, and it is also evident that the witnesses are laboring under an obvious and palpable mistake of fact.

Decree affirmed.