The morning call., 1891-09-12
A BTILDER,s LIEN.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in
the Hinckley case will startle those who
are interested in building. The facts were
these: Fields Cracker Company was put
ting up a building and contracted with a
builder to erect it. simultaneously the
cracker company arranged that HinckleY,
who represented the Fulton Iron Works,
should supply a certain quantity of steel to
be used in the building. The contractor
failing to pay Hinckley, he sued the cracker
company and claimed TO hold mechanics
lien Oh the building. The company de-
INJURED 10 his suit on the ground that the
lien had not been fled. To the demurrer
Hinckley replied that under the law no one
but the principal contractor was bound to
file his lien, and that the party who fur
uished supplies was under no such ohhga-
ton. The Supreme Court has sustained
this contention and ruled that Hinckley' S
lien will hold.
The decision will add to the confusion
which prevails in the law concerning build
ing. The doctrine of the common law is
that one who furnishes supplies or labor to
the construction Of a building can hold the
building itself for his pay. This doctrine
has been modified in most of the States by
statutes which require party claiming to
hold lien on building TO record it as no.
tice to purchasers. When the lien is not re-
corded it is Of no validity as against third
party. Under this law the owner of a
building is frequently placed in position
of embarrassment. He may pay the con-
tractor in full when the building is finished,
but If the contractor has not paid the mason
and carpenter and plasterer and painter
and plumber and other mechanics who have
worked OF the building, or has left the lum-
berman's bill or the brick-yard bill unsatis-
fed, his house may be held for the debts.
The only safe course for him to pursue is
not to pay the contractor until the latter
presents the receipted bills of every one
who has worked on the building or contrib
uted materials for its construction.
In most Of the States the rule regarding
liens is vigorous. a lien which is not re-
corded is no lien at all. 1t is like an unre-
corded mortgage, and is Of no avail as
against an innocent bona-fde purchaser.
But in this State, under the decision of the
Supreme Court in the Hinckley case, il
seems that sub-contTactor can hold a lien
on a building without recording it. 1t is
hardly necessary TO observe that this ruling
Will expose huuse-builders TO serious annoy
ance and, perhaps, loss
A man may build house and pay the
contractor to the uttermost farthing, yet he
has no guarantee that when he tries to sell
the house, some purveyor of materials, or
some mechanic who has worked on the
house will not turn up with lien, OF which
be has had no notice and no knowledge.
That is manifestly unfair, and suggests that
the law stands in need of modification. II
is plain that the mechanic who puts his
labor and the merchant who puts his goods
into new building should have a claim on
the building for their pay, and should not
be forced to chase debtor who may turn
ont to be insolvent. But it is also plain
that there should be some device by which
a partv seeking to buy house should be
able 10 ascertain whether or no there is any
incumbrance on it.
In this State attempts have been made to
overcome the difficulty by requiring bonds
from the builder But security Dond is