Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-12-20
THE LIEN LAW AGAIN.

THE LIEN LAW AGAIN. -
Judge Wade's Charge TO . jury
in q Case.
Anything relating to the present Ida
law of this State is of direct interest to
those who have houses built, to those
who do the work, to those who supply
the material, and to the supervising
architect. Following is . charge by
Judge Wade in case where Architect
R. B. Young sued f. G. Howes. Young
was the architect for some building
done for Howes. After the work was
done some mechanics liens were filed
on the premises, and Mr.. Howes, claim
ing that the architect was responsible for
these. refused to pay him portion of his
fees. Young sued and got judgment.
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY-This is an
action by the plaintiff for services rem
dered to the defendant as architect and
superintendent. The fact that those
services were rendered, in what is de-
nominated in the pleadings, plaintiffs
first cause of action, l believe is not dis
puted at all. The only matter in dispute
IL the amount of money which had been
paid; that is only disputed in the plead
ings, and seems to be admitted in the
evidence and the argument. As to what
Is denominated in the pleadings as
plaintiffs second cause of action, the
matter in dispute there is simply that
the plaintiff undertook to render certain
services, and whether he rendered the
= ~~kk A. L. e
action (that is the Main street building),
a. architect and superintendent of con-
struction, that were of value to the de-
fendant and of the value stated in the
plesdings, you will be the sole judges
from the evidence as it appears before
you. Defendants defense, beyond this,
Is affirmative in its character. That is,
he affirms that the plaintiff has so negli-
gently acted in his capacity of superin-
tendent of construction, or was 80 inefi-
cient as an architect, one or both, that
In consequence the defendant has been
damaged in the construction of the build
ing. The matter for you to consider in
this connection is: First, what kind or
class of building was the plaintiff in
structed by the defendant to prepare
plans and specifications for. This you
must determine from the evidence. Sec
ond, was the work as superintended and
directed by the plaintiff done according
to those plans and specifications when
they were prepared. If they were
not prepared as directed by de.
fendsnt-.hat is, if the plans
and specifications for the build
ing were not for such q building as
defendant wanted then plaintiff has been
negligent or remiss in his duty. This
would be good defense to his action to
recover the value of his services; and it
also would support the defendants first
cause of action set out in the cross com.
plant, in 80 far as defendant was dam
aged by any failure of duty by plaintiff
on that account. If, on the other hand,
you find that plaintiff did prepare the
plans and specifications for building
such as he was directed to prepare by
defendant, of the class of building and
kind of building that defendant wanted,
but that in experimenting the construc.
tion of it he was 30 careless and negli-
gent as to suffer improper materials or
improper workmanship to enter into the
building, whereby it was damaged and
rendered less valuable than it otherwise
would have been if done according to the
plans and specifications other words,
If he failed to superintend and direct the
construction of the building according to
the plans and specifications, then that
would be negligence on his part for
which the defendant could recover the
amount that defendant would be dam.
aged by such failure.
The next thing for you to take into con-
sideration is defendants second cause of
action, set out in his Cross complaint. That
is, that plaintiff undertook and agreed as
part of his employment as architect for
the construction of the building on Main
and Upper Main street, to prepare and
file for record the two contracts or
either OF the contracts. Now, it is the
primary duty of either the owner of the
building or the party with whom he con-
tracts as principal contractor, to file the
contract, if in writing, and If the amount
is over 81 900 it is required to be in writ
ing, and it is the duty of either one, and
OF one as much as the other, to file this
contract for record that is, il is the duty
OF the owner Of the building lin this case
Mr.. Howes) or the contractor Gn this
case Mr.. Lsne). It was the duty of
either one or the other, and as much
the duty OF one as the other to file the in
strument for record. The reason is this
That in the event of its not being fled
for record it bscomes void and neither
party to the contract-that is, in this
case, neither Howes nor Lane could re-
cover anything on the contract. Lane
could not recover for the work done and
material furnished by him from Howes
nor could Howes recover from Lane for
any failure on his part to carry out the
contract according to it's terms and con-
ditions. In order that it might have be-
come the duty of the architect in this
case to file this contract, it should appear
from the evidence either that he ex-
pressly agreed with the defendant to file
1t for record, or that he promised under
such circumstances to file the instrument
for record, and that Mr.. Howes relied
upon him, and was unable under the cir
cumstances to do so, or prevented by the
plaintiffs undertaking that duty from
doing it himself, or you would have to
ind from the evidence that that was a part
OF the necessary duty of the architect of |
the building to file contract OF this kind |
for record. There is absolutely no evil |
dence upon the latter point in this CASE
no evidence or any testimony tending to
prove any such duty as being necessarily |
incumbent upon the architect by virtue /
OF his calling. 1t is not sufficient for
this puryoco IN v.vou, ,~,a-o1~