Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-07-05

SUPREME coUnr DECISION.

Liens Must be Orawns
The following is the opinion Of the
Court Of Appeals AZ delivered by
Judge Fauntleroy, at Wytheville, in
the case Of Shackleford rs. Beck Fl ois.,
deciding how mechanics liens should
be drawn with reference to statement
Of work and labor done, and materials
furnished:
This is an appeal from three DEGREES
Of the Circuit Court Of Clarke county,
one rendered in vacation, August 1,
1888, in the cause Of John II. Shackle-
ford against c. A. Beck and others (;
another rendered May 20, 1884, in the
consolidated causes Of Shackleford rs.
Beck et ais and Of Gambler rs. Russell,
and the other rendered June /, 1888,
in the cause Of Gambler rs. Russell.
A transcript Of the record Of these
causes (which were virtually one)
shows the following facts 4: Che
appellant, who is carpenter and
general contractor, under a written
contract, dated March i, 1882,
built for the appellee, c. A. Beck, on
his lot in the town of Berfyville,
in the summer of 1882, frame
dwelling house for the contract price
Of 1927. During the progress of the
work some changes were made in the
plan nccessitating extra work, for
which extra charges were made to the
amount Of sl05. The house was COM
pleted and turned over to the owner
c. A. Beck--on Goth September, 1882,
and an account was rendered to the
said Beck by the appellant, which shows
the work done and the material fur
nished; and after crediting the partial
payments strikes a balance due of
s667. On the 9Th October, 1882, APP
pellant filed in the clerks office of
Clarke county paper in the following
words-yiz., "To balance Of account
rendered for work and labor done
and material furnished for your
house y; and he made affidavit to the
correctness of it, and appended to it a
statement declaring his intention to
claim the benefit Of the lien given by
law to mechanics. This paper was
duly acknowledged and admitted to
record.
C. A. Beck, the appellee, in No.
vember, 1882, about two months after
the recordation Of this aforesaid
paper, sold and conveyed the
said property to L. w. Gambler for the
consideration of $1,000, of which he
paid in cash $3.50 to Mcdonald and
Moore, attorneys for the vendor, Beck,
and retained in his hands the residue to
meet certain liens upon the property.
To the December rules, 1882, of the
Circuit Court of Clarke county the ap-
pellant filed his bill. alleging his lien
upon the property, and asking its en-
forcement and, in the alternative, al
leging the non-reSidence of G. A. Beck,
and that both Gambler and Mcdonald
and Moore had money in their hands
belonging to him, and praying that it
might be attached and subjected to his
debt. Gambler and Moore both an
swered the bill, and attack the validity
of the appellants lien.
The question involved in the contro-
versy is whether the appellant duly
complied with the requirements Of the
law in filing his account as embodied
in the paper aforesaid, filed by him UNI
der the Sd and 4th sections of chapter
lis of the Code of 1873.
The Judge of the Circuit Court was Of
the opinion that the said paper relied
on by the appellant to sustain his lien
was "invalid and Intellectual for such
purpose, because it is not drawn and
recorded as the law requires, and that
the relief prayed for in said bill, so far
as it is based upon said paper, should
be denied, and doth so decide
Sections 2, 3, and 4 of chapter lis
of the Code of 1873 provide the ma
chinery by which a mechanic or gen.
eral contractor may avail himself Of
the lien there given. There have been
several amendments Of these sections,
but they relate Only to the time within
which the account must be filed in the
clerks office. Two modes Of securing
lien arc provided--one, under the
I'd section, by recording the writ
ten contract, when there is one, and
the other, under section 4, by filing in
the clerks Office a true account of the
work done or material furnished, sworn
to by the claimant, with a statement
attached declaring his intention to claim
the benefit of the lien, and setting
forth a brief description of the pro-
perty. A mechanic may proceed un-
Ger either the one or the other of these
modes; and this whether there be a
written contract or not. Merchants
and Mechanics !Sarings Bank rs. Da.
shell, 25M Graft, p. Col.
The proceeding in this case was I'M
der the third and fourth sections, OBJ
viously for the reason that the recorda-
ton of the written contract would not
have covered the extra wOrk. The APP
pellant elected to proceed under the
third and fourth sections and the ques-
ton to be determined is whether he
complied with the conditions prescribed
in these said sections.
The third section enacts, "all arti-
zans, builders, mechanics, lumber-deal-
ers, and others performing labor or fur
nishing materials for the construction,
repair, or improvement Of any building
or other property, shall have lien, as
hereinafter provided, upon such pro-
perty," &c.
The fourth section prescribes what
shall be done by one seeking to secure
the benefit Of the provisions contained
in the third section, as follows: " A
general contractor wishing to avail him.
self Of the lien given him by the pre-
ceding section shall file, within thirty
days after the completion of the
work, in the clerks Office of the county
or corporation court of the county or
corporation in which the property upon
which lien is sought to be secured is
situated, true account of the
work done or material furnished, sworn
TO by said claimant or his agent, with a
statement attached signifying his inten-
ton to claim the benefit Of said lien,
and settinp forth q brief description OF