The record-union., 1891-02-23
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Filled February 12 1901

Filled February 10, 1891.
appeal frpm Superior Court Santa Bar
oara-R. NJ: billiard. Judge.
FOR appellant-Cope 6 Boyce.
or respondents-B. T. Thomas, A. E.
Putnam, w. p. Butcher.
IN BANK.
BOOTH, EFT AIS, Respondents, -
VS.. No. 13, 267
PENDoLA EFT AIS, Appellants.
BY THE COURT.
This is an action brought by plaintiffs
having several liens Of mechanics and
material men against property owned by
Pendola, deceased, in his lifetime.
The findings show that Pendola entered
Into written agreement with one Ham
llton on March %, 1887, for the construc-
ton of the Western Hotel in the city of
Santa Barbara, and on the 18th of June
entered into another contract with said
Hamilton to build q cottage near said
hotel and on the same lot. Neither OF these
contracts was recorded. Belt 81 Co. fur
nished materials for both buildings, for
which Hamilton agreed to pay a reasona-
ble price. The court finds that the rea-
Sonable value of the materials furnished
by them was 1868 50. On May 2, 1887,
Hamilton entered into an agreement with
Backus d Heyl, by the terms of which
the latter were to paint the hotel for the
sum of 1865, and the cottage for the sum
of Sl35. The court finds that of these
sums Sl3l II remain unpaid Lightner IL
buckingham furnished materials for and
performed certain work on the cottage,
for which Hamilton was to pay the sum
of 1895, and performed certain work on
and furnished materials for the hotel, for
which they were to receive the sum of
S9l5, ofwhich the sum of S535 30 remains
due and unpaid.
1. The claims of lien filed by Backus 6,
Heyl and Lightner q Buckingham seq
regate and specify the amounts which
they were to be paid on each building,
and state the total of the amounts paid to
them and the balance due on both build
ings. 1t is not stated, either in the COM
plaint or in the findings, how much re-
main due on each of the buildings, and
the question is presented whether joint
lien can be filed against two buildings
where they are separate structures which
have been erected at different times, and
under different contracts between the
owner and the original contractor. 1t
eeems to be conceded that a joint lien
may be filed against two buildings erected
at the same time and under the same con-
tract. We think there can be no doubt
that such is the case; and whatever may
be the rights of an original contractor hay-
ing constructed two separate buildings
under two separate and valid contracts,
we think that in the case at bar the only
effect Of the failure to state how much la
ing and how much the other, is to post
pone the liens of these claimants and
give precedence to the liens of others.
2. The complaint alleges that Hamilton
agreed to pay Bacl1us II Heyl the sums of
1865 and Sl35, above referred to, and that
he agreed to pay Buckingham. 81 Light
ner the sum of 1915 for work done on and
material furnished for the hotel and S335
on account of the cottage, but it is no.
where alleged, nor does the court find
what was the value Of any of the materi-
ais furnished or any of the work per-
formed. Such allegations and findings
were necessary, and the judgment cannot
be supported without them. The con-
tract between the owner and Hamilton
was never filed for record. 1t was void,
and while it is doubtless true that the
contract price agreed upon between Ham
ilton, the agent of the owner, and the ma
teral men and laborers, is pyiH1G fIcie
evidence of the value of the materials fur
nished and labor performed, and would
support finding of value, we think that
an allegation and a finding on the subject
are essential to support judgment in ac-
tions of this character.
All other points made by appellant and
worthy of consideration were noticed by
Mr.. Justice Mcfarland in the opinion
filed in department t23 Pac. Rep. 200),
and we are satisfied with the conclusions
therein reached.
Judgment as to plaintiffs Buckingham
and Heyl is reversed, and the cause is re-
manded for new trial, with permission
10 amend their pleadings as they may be
advised. In all other respects the iudg-
mant is affirmed