IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 98-CT-00762-SCT

AMERIHOST DEVELOPMENT, INC.

v.

BROMANCO, INC.; K & K BATHTUB REPAIR;

DIAMOND DOOR GROUP, INC.; DEER PARK

FENCE & INSULATION CO.; GREY PLUMBING, INC.;

S & L CREATIVE CARPET; VICKSBURG PAINT &

GLASS COMPANY; PRECISION ROOF SERVICES, INC.;

VINZANT CONSTRUCTION; CONTROLLED AIR

COMFORT COMPANY; SOUTHERN ELECTRIC

SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.; WRIGHT'S PAINTING;

BRUCE COPES ELECTRICAL, INC.; METROPOLIS

BUILDERS SUPPLY; PARADISE POOLS & SPAS;

BARRY LANDSCAPE, INC.; UNITED PIPING, INC.;

UPTON PLASTERING; MID-SOUTH LUMBER &

SUPPLY, INC.; W. J. RUNYON & SON, INC.; TESA/ENTRY

SYSTEMS, INC.; AND GEE & STRICKLAND, INC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
DATE OF

JUDGMENT:

4/15/1998

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. FRANK G. VOLLOR

COURT FROM

WHICH APPEALED:

WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEYS FOR

APPELLANT:

PHIL B. ABERNETHY

JEFFREY TODD WAYCASTER

RICHARD M. DYE

ATTORNEYS FOR

APPELLEES:

ROBERT R. BAILESS

CHARLES L. BALCH, III

JAMES L. PENLEY, JR.

LUCIUS B. DABNEY, JR.

JOHN H. SHOWS

ALAN L. BURRELL

WREN C. WAY

NATURE OF THE

CASE:

CIVIL - CONTRACT

DISPOSITION: The judgment of the Warren County Circuit Court is reversed and remanded for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment of the Court of

Appeals is affirmed.- 4/12/2001

MOTION FOR

REHEARING FILED:

4/25/2001; denied 6/21/2001

MANDATE ISSUED: 6/28/2001

EN BANC.

WALLER, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This appeal presents the issue of whether a subcontractor's stop payment notice to the owner benefits

all subcontractors and suppliers, including those who failed to give a stop payment notice before the owner

made the final payment to the general contractor. We find that one stop payment notice does not inure to

the benefit of the other subcontractors.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

¶2. Amerihost Development, Inc., an Illinois corporation licensed to do business in Mississippi, is the

owner/developer of a construction project known as Days Inn, Rainbow Park, in Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Amerihost entered into a construction contract with general contractor Bromanco, Inc., for $2,011,082.83.

No construction lender was involved as Amerihost self-financed the project. Amerihost made irregular
inspections of the project site through its personnel, choosing to rely heavily on Bromanco's expertise as the

general contractor.

¶3. The contract specified that periodic progress payments minus a ten percent retainage would be made to

Bromanco. Before Amerihost would send progress payments, Bromanco was required to submit periodic

applications for payment, stating the percentages of completion and including appropriate lien waivers. A

total of eight progress payments were made to Bromanco.

¶4. Initially, Bromanco provided the appropriate applications, and the project progressed without any

major problems. However, as the project neared completion Bromanco began to submit applications for

payment without complete lien waivers, and, in fact, submitted some duplicate lien waivers. Yet, during this

period, no stop notices were sent to Amerihost by any subcontractors, materialmen, or suppliers.

¶5. On April 17, 1995, Wright's Painting Co., a subcontractor, tendered a statutory stop payment notice

for $25,000 to Amerihost. This dispute was resolved. On April 30, 1995, Bromanco submitted an

application for payment on the project in the amount of $272,819.13, which would leave a retainage of

$110,330.20 after payment. On May 5, 1995, Amerihost received a stop notice letter from Southern

Electric Supply Company stating that it had not been paid approximately $30,881.56. On May 15, 1995,

Amerihost paid Bromanco $272,819.13.

¶6. After receiving this payment, Bromanco defaulted as general contractor even though the project was

substantially complete. As a result Amerihost hired its own work force at a cost of $19,844.62 to complete

the project, leaving a retainage of $90,485.58.

¶7. Between May 15 and November 15, 1995, Amerihost received numerous stop payment notices and/or

bills from several of the Bromanco subcontractors and materialmen. Consequently, on November 15,

1995, Amerihost filed an interpleader action against the subcontractors and materialmen(1) and paid the

remaining retainage of $90,485.58 into the registry of the Warren County Circuit Court.

¶8. The circuit court found that one subcontractor's stop payment notice was sufficient to require Amerihost

to withhold all outstanding money due Bromanco until an investigation was made to determine whether there

were other unpaid subcontractors. Based on the single stop payment notice, the owner was held liable for

all other unpaid claims of subcontractors that existed on the date of the notice, together with attorneys' fees

and costs to the subcontractors.

¶9. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding a statutory stop-payment notice benefits only the subcontractor

giving notice. Amerihost Dev., Inc. v. Bromanco, Inc., No. 98-CA-60762-COA (Miss. Ct. App.

2000). A motion for rehearing was denied by a 5-3 vote. We, in turn, granted certiorari.

DISCUSSION

I. INTERPRETATION OF MISS. CODE ANN. § 85-7-181 (1999).

A. Effect of One Subcontractor's Stop Payment Notice.

¶10. Save an amendment in 1987 allowing reasonable attorney's fees, Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-181 has

remained unchanged since it was amended to its present form in 1918. A comparison of the wording in the

predecessor 1906 statute and the 1918 statute shows a single stop payment notice protects only the party
giving actual written notice. The following is a partial(2) comparison of the 1906 statute, 1906 Miss. Laws §

3074, and the 1918 statute, 1918 Miss. Laws ch. 128:

1906 Statute

Deletions made in 1918 are in bold:

1918 Statute

Additions made in 1918 are in bold:

When any contractor or master workman shall not

pay any person who may have furnished materials

used in the erection, construction, alteration or

repairing of any house, building, structure, fixture,

boat, water-craft, railroad, railroad embankment, or

When any contractor or master workman shall not

pay any person who may have furnished materials

used in the erection, construction, alteration or

repairing of any house, building, structure, fixture,

boat, water-craft, railroad, railroad embankment,

the amount due by him to any subcontractor therein,

or the wages of any journeyman or laborer

employed by him therein,

the amount due by him to any subcontractor therein,

or the wages of any journeyman or laborer employed

by him therein, any

such person, sub-contractor, journeyman or laborer

may give notice, in writing, to the owner thereof of

the amount due

such person, sub-contractor, journeyman or laborer

may give notice, in writing, to the owner thereof of

the amount due him and claim the benefit of this

section;

and thereupon the amount the amount that may be

due

and thereupon the amount that may be due upon the

date of the service of such notice

by such owner to the contractor or master workman

shall be bound and liable

by such owner to the contractor or master workman

shall be bound

in the hands of such owner for payment of the sum

so claimed

in the hands of such owner for payment in full, or if

insufficient then pro rata, of all sums due such

person, subcontractor, journeyman or laborer

who might lawfully have given notice in writing

to the owner hereunder;

¶11. Relying on McNair v. M.L. Virden Lumber Co., 193 Miss. 232, 4 So. 2d 684 (1941), the

subcontractors argue that the 1918 statute requires the owner to hold up all payments due the general

contractor and give equal rights to all subcontractors regardless of when or whether the other

subcontractors give written notice. In McNair we explicitly refused to decide the issue, stating,

We are not considering a case where the owner pays the balance to the one giving notice before he

receives such notice from others, or before others assert their claims in court. That is not the case. We

will deal with that when and if such situation arises.

* * *

One notice stops the right of the owner to pay the contractor the amount claimed in that notice.

Id. at 689 (emphasis added).
¶12. The statute clearly contemplates notice in writing to the owner of all sums due each subcontractor.

Only subcontractors who give the required notice under the statute are entitled to claim the benefit of this

statute. We agree with the Court of Appeals' interpretation of § 85-7-181: "It would be destructive of the

overall purpose of the construction of § 85-7-181 to hold . . . that the legislature intended for one notice to

serve as right of lien by all potential subcontractors . . . who have labored and provided supplies but have

not followed the requirements of the same." Therefore, we hold that the filing of a stop-payment notice

under § 85-7-181 benefits only the subcontractor(s) giving actual notice prior to the time the owner pays

the prime contractor.

¶13. In affirming the Court of Appeals on this issue, we must acknowledge that this is a very difficult

decision to make, but no other result can be reached under a fair reading of the statute. We think it

significant that this statute has apparently worked well under our interpretation since the present version was

adopted in 1918. That is not to say that the Legislature should not revisit this statute to bring the language up

to date and to review the protections offered in light of use and custom in today's construction industry.

B. Filing of Suit.

¶14. Further comparison of the 1906 and 1918 statutes is helpful:

1906 Statute 1918 Statute

and if, after and if, after such

notice, the contractor or master workman shall bring

suit against the owner, the latter may pay into court

the amount due on the contract

notice, the contractor or master workman shall bring

suit against the owner, the latter may pay into court

the amount due on the contract;

and and

the person giving notice thereupon all persons entitled hereunder, so far

as known,

shall be shall be made parties and

summoned summoned into court

to to

protect their rights,

contest the demand of such contractor or master

workman;

contest the demand of such contractor or master

workman and other claimants;

¶15. We interpret the statute to provide that, once a suit is filed, all interested persons, so far as known,

shall be made a party to the suit. The subcontractors argue that since all parties are entitled to notice when

suit is filed, the filing of a single stop-notice should also be interpreted to protect all. The reasons for

providing all known persons notice once a suit has been filed are obvious. By this point all negotiations have

broken off, any debts owed are disputed, and to adjudicate a dispute in a construction project, all

interested persons should have notice. The filing of a stop payment notice, on the other hand, comes before

matters have deteriorated and ideally will prevent the need for the filing of a lawsuit by encouraging disputes

to be resolved between the subcontractor seeking payment and the general contractor/owner. As no lawsuit
was filed by the subcontractors, we affirm the Court of Appeals' finding that a subcontractor is not required

to give notice to all known persons that he has given an owner/subcontractor a stop-payment notice.

II. DOES THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION CONFLICT WITH PRIOR

DECISIONS OF THIS COURT?

¶16. The trial court held that Amerihost negligently or wilfully failed to ensure that Bromanco was paying the

subcontractors, that such failure proximately caused the subcontractors' losses, and that Amerihost, as both

owner and lender, was liable for all subcontractors' claims even if the claims exceeded the amount due to

them under the contract. The court reasoned that Amerihost was liable due to its failure to monitor properly

the progress of the work and, citing First Nat'l Bank v. Virden, 208 Miss. 679, 45 So. 2d 268 (1950),

due to its failure to ensure that the subcontractors were paid.

¶17. In distinguishing Virden, the Court of Appeals noted that Virden was decided in the context of

mortgage law where an issue of preference arose between competing liens. In Virden, we held that where

a bank accepted a deed of trust on property from the contractor and advanced proceeds to the contractor

but failed to ensure that the funds were being spent on the construction project, the bank's lien was superior

to those of materialmen only to the extent that the loan proceeds actually went into the project. Id.

¶18. However, in the present case, a mortgage was not involved because Amerihost was self funded. A

mechanic's lien case, Engle Acoustic & Tile, Inc. v. Grenfell, 223 So. 2d 613 (Miss. 1969), is more on

point. Suit was brought by several subcontractors against the project's owners and architect for balances

due them as a result of the default of Fran Builders, the prime contractor. Fran made nine applications for

payment for labor and materials furnished. Each application was submitted to the owner's architect for

verification before payment was remitted. Near the end of the project, it became apparent that Fran had not

paid all laborers and materialmen involved in the project and work ceased shortly thereafter. Fran was later

declared bankrupt. None of the laborers or materialmen filed a stop payment notice on their claims until

after the owners had paid Fran in full in response to its ninth and last application for payment.

¶19. In reaching a favorable decision for the owners, we acknowledged the difficult consequences resulting

from our decision: "[I]t is regrettably true that either the subcontractors will lose their labor and materials in

the amounts stated or the owners will be forced to make a double payment. It does not necessarily follow,

however, that the owners were in the best position to have prevented the loss." Id. at 618. As was the

situation in the case sub judice, the owners in Engle, initiated the overall project and trusted and relied

heavily upon their prime contractor to complete the contracted project without any difficulties or problems.

We acknowledged that the subcontractors and materialmen also relied on and trusted Fran, but their

reliance and trust were as equally misguided and displaced as was that of the owners.

¶20. In ultimately deciding which party, the owners or the subcontractors, was in the best position to

prevent the resulting losses, we held that none of the subcontractors had availed themselves of the pertinent

statutory remedy. Id. So long as advance payments to the prime contractor extinguished debt and were

paid prior to receipt of the statutory stop payment notices, liability was precluded on the part of the owners.

Id. at 619.

¶21. The Court of Appeals, relying on Engle, determined that

the subcontractors and materialmen were not left without recourse under the current statutory
construction of § 85-7-181, provided they invoke its benefits and protections through their own due

diligence and in accordance with the statutory requirements. To allow those who failed to avail

themselves of its benefits, would seek to circumvent the statutory requirements and ride the coat-tails

of those subcontractors and materialmen who actually asserted their rights.

¶22. We agree with the Court of Appeals that to allow such a result would offend justice and be destructive

of the overall purpose and intent behind § 85-7-181. As such, we find that the Court of Appeals properly

interpreted and applied Virden and Engle to the facts in this case.

III. ATTORNEY'S FEES.

¶23. The Court of Appeals determined that the subcontractors were not entitled to attorney's fees, but

remanded the case to the circuit court on the sole issue of whether Amerihost was so entitled.

A. Subcontractors.

¶24. Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-181 provides that a subcontractor is entitled to attorney's fees if the owner

denies any indebtedness. The circuit court awarded attorney's fees to the laborers, subcontractors and

materialmen. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that there was no showing that Amerihost had denied

any indebtedness. Southern Electric's stop payment notice did not constitute a denial of debt by Amerihost.

Rather, Amerihost's filing of this interpleader action sufficiently demonstrated that it was willing to pay

whomever the trial court determined had a valid claim to the interpled funds.

B. Amerihost.

¶25. Amerihost argues that it was entitled to attorney's fees for defending the subcontractors' claims in the

interpleader action. See Perkins State Bank v. Connolly, 632 F.2d 1306, 1311 (5th Cir. 1980) (A

party who initiates an interpleader action and qualifies as a mere disinterested stake holder may be awarded

reasonable attorney's fees); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Sauter, 377 F. Supp. 68, 70 (N.D. Miss. 1974) (A

party who has properly brought an interpleader action may be entitled to an award of attorney's fees). The

Court of Appeals remanded to the circuit court to make a factual finding of whether Amerihost was a

disinterested stakeholder and therefore entitled to attorney's fees. "An award of attorneys' fees and costs in

favor of the party representing an interpleader action against funds interpled into the court registry is a

discretionary matter lying with the trial court." See Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Natchez Inv. Co., 161

Miss. 198,132 So. 535, 539 (1931). We agree that the Court of Appeals properly remanded this issue.

CONCLUSION

¶26. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the judgment of the

Warren County Circuit Court is reversed and this case is remanded to that circuit court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶27. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. THE JUDGMENT OF

THE CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF WARREN COUNTY.

PITTMAN, C.J., BANKS, P.J., SMITH, MILLS, COBB AND EASLEY, JJ., CONCUR.

McRAE, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. DIAZ, J., NOT
PARTICIPATING.

McRAE, PRESIDING JUSTICE, DISSENTING:

¶28. Once a stop payment notice is filed pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-181 (1999), it should benefit

all subcontractors and suppliers of the same class. The circuit court so held, and I would affirm its decision.

When the owner of a construction project receives a statutory stop payment notice, it is aware that a

financial dispute exists and should have a duty to check for other disputes before paying off the general

contractor. Where there is smoke there is usually a fire. Accordingly, I dissent.

¶29. Relevant portions of the statute are as follows:

When any contractor or master workman shall not pay any person . . . any such person,

subcontractor, journeyman, or laborer may give notice, in writing, to the owner thereof of the amount

due him and claim the benefit of this section .. . . and, thereupon the amount that may be due upon the

date of the service of such notice by such owner to the contractor or master workman shall be bound

in the hands of such owner for payment in full, or if insufficient then pro rata, of all sums due such

person, subcontractor, journeyman, or laborer who might lawfully have given notice in writing to

the owner hereunder. . . .

Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-181 (1999) (emphasis added).

¶30. The statute states that, upon written notice, the owner must retain "all such sums" that are owed to

anyone who might have given notice under this section. It does not require them to have actually given

notice to receive the benefits of this section, so long as the owner has received a written stop payment

notice. They must merely have been entitled to give notice.

¶31. Furthermore, section 85-7-181 states that if, after giving notice, the contractor sues the owner:

thereupon all persons entitled hereunder, so far as known, shall be made parties and summoned into

court to protect their rights . . . or, in case any person entitled to the benefits hereof shall sue the

contractor or master workman, such person so suing shall make the owner and all other persons

interested, either as contractors, master workmen, subcontractors, laborers, journeymen, or

materialmen, so far as known, parties to the suit . . . .

(emphasis added).

¶32. The majority holds that each and every subcontractor and supplier must give a written stop payment

notice before reaping the benefits of this section. This is contrary to the plain language of the statute, which

states that anyone who might have given notice under the statute is entitled to its protections once the

owner has received a written stop payment notice. Such an interpretation only serves to protect an owner

who negligently pays a general contractor with funds that are owed to subcontractors and suppliers. The

majority notes that its decision is a difficult one. The resolution of this case should not be difficult because,

under the statute, once notice is given the owner is under a duty to find out what the problems are and to

withhold payment from the general contractor until they are resolved. Once a lawsuit is filed, all

subcontractors, materialmen, etc. must be made parties, regardless of whether they submitted stop payment

notices. It makes no sense to bring these people into court if they have no rights to protect, as the majority

now holds.
¶33. Once a suit is commenced, the statute requires all interested persons be made party to the suit. It

specifically includes "contractors, master workmen, subcontractors, laborers, journeymen, or materialmen,"

and does not limit its scope to only those who have provided written stop payment notices. This provision is

contrary to the majority's holding that "[o]nly subcontractors who give the required notice under the statute

are entitled to claim the benefit of this statute." If only those parties who give written notice may benefit from

this statute, then it is senseless to require all others to be joined in the lawsuit as well. The statute mandates

that all parties be joined, not merely those who submitted written stop payment notices.

¶34. Amerihost Development, Inc., received its first stop payment notice for $25,000 on April 17, 1995,

from Wright's Painting Co. Less than two weeks later, on April 30, Amerihost received a request for

payment of $272,819.13 from Bromanco. On May 5,1995, Amerihost received its second stop payment

notice for more than $30,000 from Southern Electric Supply Co.(3) Inexplicably, a mere ten days after

receiving the second stop payment notice, Amerihost paid Bromanco the entire amount it requested without

investigating into claims by Southern Electric or any other subcontractors or suppliers.

¶35. Amerihost received not one but two stop payment notices in less than three weeks, in addition to other

irregularities, such as incomplete or duplicate lien waivers. Even so, rather than honor the notice from

Southern Electric, much less investigate into other possible claims, Amerihost paid off Bromanco on May

15, 1995. Almost immediately after receiving payment, Bromanco defaulted on the remainder of the project

and failed to pay numerous suppliers and subcontractors.

¶36. Amerihost was clearly in the best position to prevent this loss. The contract between it and Bromanco

required requests for payment to be accompanied with lien waivers from each of the subcontractors and

suppliers before payment was to be made. However, later payments were made without complete lien

waivers, or with duplicate lien waivers. Had Amerihost performed its duties under the contract, the

subcontractors and suppliers would have been protected. Also, requiring Amerihost to contact the

subcontractors and suppliers to find out whether they have been paid before making final payment to

Bromanco would not impose an onerous burden. Amerihost should know who they were from previous

payments and lien waivers. At the least, it could have demanded a list of subcontractors and suppliers from

the general contractor.

¶37. A stop payment notice issued pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-181 (1999) should provide notice

of a payment dispute for the benefit of all subcontractors and suppliers of the same class. Because

Amerihost received two such notices, one only ten days before paying off Bromanco, it should be liable to

the subcontractors and suppliers for amounts paid to Bromanco after receiving the first stop payment

notice. Accordingly, I dissent.

Appendix A

1906 Statute

Deletions made in 1918 are in bold:

1918 Statute

Additions made in 1918 are in bold:
When any contractor or master workman shall not

pay any person who may have furnished materials

used in the erection, construction, alteration or

repairing of any house, building, structure, fixture,

boat, water-craft, railroad, railroad embankment, or

When any contractor or master workman shall not

pay any person who may have furnished materials

used in the erection, construction, alteration or

repairing of any house, building, structure, fixture,

boat, water-craft, railroad, railroad embankment,

the amount due by him to any subcontractor therein,

or the wages of any journeyman or laborer

employed by him therein,

the amount due by him to any subcontractor therein,

or the wages of any journeyman or laborer employed

by him therein, any

such person, sub-contractor, journeyman or laborer

may give notice, in writing, to the owner thereof of

the amount due

such person, sub-contractor, journeyman or laborer

may give notice, in writing, to the owner thereof of

the amount due him and claim the benefit of this

section;

and thereupon the amount the amount that may be

due

and thereupon the amount that may be due upon the

date of the service of such notice

by such owner to the contractor or master workman

shall be bound and liable

by such owner to the contractor or master workman

shall be bound

in the hands of such owner for payment of the sum

so claimed

in the hands of such owner for payment in full, or if

insufficient then pro rata, of all sums due such

person, subcontractor, journeyman or laborer

who might lawfully have given notice in writing

to the owner hereunder;

and if, after and if, after such

notice, the contractor or master workman shall bring

suit against the owner, the latter may pay into court

the amount due on the contract

notice, the contractor or master workman shall bring

suit against the owner, the latter may pay into court

the amount due on the contract;

and the person giving notice and thereupon all persons entitled hereunder, so

far as known,

shall be shall be made parties and

summoned summoned into court

to to

protect their rights,

contest the demand of such contractor or master

workman

contest the demand of such contractor or master

workman and other claimants;

and the court may and the court shall

cause an issue to be made up and tried, and direct cause an issue to be made up and tried, and direct

the

payment of the amount claimed by the person

giving the notice out of the money so paid into

court

payment of the amount found due in accordance

with the provisions hereof;

or, in case the or, in case any

person giving the notice person entitled to the benefits hereof
shall sue the contractor or master workman, he shall sue the contractor or master workman, such

person so suing

shall make the owner shall make the owner and all other persons

interested, either as contractors, master

workmen, subcontractors, laborers, journeymen

or materialmen, so far as known,

a party parties

to the suit, to the suit, (and any such party not made a party

in any suit hereunder authorized may intervene

by petition),

and thereupon the owner may pay into court the

amount

and, thereupon the owner may pay into court the

amount admitted to be

due on the contract, or sufficient to pay the sum due on the contract, or sufficient to pay the sums

claimed, and costs, claimed,

and the court shall and the court shall cause an issue to be made up

and

award the same to the person who may be

entitled thereto;

award the same to person lawfully

and entitled;

in neither in either

case shall case

the owner the owner shall not

be liable to pay costs; be liable for costs;

but if the owner, when sued with the contractor or

master workman, shall deny any indebtedness

sufficient to satisfy the sum claimed, and all costs,

the court,

but if the owner, when sued with the contractor or

master workman, shall deny any indebtedness

sufficient to satisfy the sums claimed and all costs, the

court shall,

at the instance of the plaintiff, at the instance of any party interested,

may

cause an issue to be made up to ascertain the true

amount of such indebtedness, and shall give

judgment and award costs according to the justice

of the case.

cause an issue to be made up to ascertain the true

amount of such indebtedness, and shall give judgment

and award costs* according to the rights of the

several parties in accordance herewith.

In case judgment shall be given in favor of the

person giving notice, as hereinbefore provided

for,

In case judgment shall be given

against the owner, such judgment shall be a lien

from the date of such notice,

against the owner, such judgment shall be a lien from

the date of the original notice,
on the building, house, structure, fixture, boat,

water-craft, railroad, or railroad embankment

in or upon which the material or labor

mentioned in such notice was used or done,

and may be enforced as in case of liens in other

cases

and shall be enforced as other liens

provided for in this chapter. provided in this chapter. The owner shall not be

liable in any event for a greater amount than the

amount contracted for with the contractor.

* This statute was amended in 1987 to allow reasonable attorneys fees to further protect the parties.

1. For convenience, the Court will refer to the subcontractors and materialmen as "subcontractors."

2. A full text comparison is set out in Appendix A.

3. A joint payment agreement entered into February 8, 1995, by Southern Electric, Bromanco, and Copes

Electric elevated Southern Electric to the status of a supplier of a general contractor and, therefore, entitled

to the protections of section 85-7-181 as of that date.