, 1892-06-02

Work Done and Material Fur
nIshed--The SuffIciency of the
Lien Notice.
w. G. Warren & E. ]. Hines, partners, etc.,
respondents, vs. Otto Quade ct al, appel.
lants.
This action was brought to foreclose a
lien for work done and materials furnished
for the erection Of a certain store building
owned by defendant, Otto Quade, and sit
uated on certain lots in the city of Tacoma.
T. work was done and the materials fur
nisAed under a contract made with the
firm of Moore & Company, which was
alleged in the complaint to be the con-
tractor for the erection OF the building.
Numerous questions are presented by the
record, and have been argued by counsel,
but the view which we take makes it un-
necessary that we should consider any OF
them, excepting those relating to the
sufhciency of the lien notice. The said
notice of lien is substantially as tOllOWs:
''Notice is hereby given that William G..
Warren and e. J. Hines, of Pier county,
state of Washington, claims 9n W IN
lots numbers tWenty-eight (28) and twenty
And in our opinion so failed to )mply
with the statute as to make it void and of
no effect for the purpose for which it was
given. The provisions of the statute pro
Viding what such lien notice shall contain
are found in section 1867 of Hill's code and
are substantially as follows:
EVERY person must file 70
record with the county auditor y
a claim containing a statement of his de-
mand, after deducting all Just credits and
offsets, with the name of the owner or re
nine (29) in block number seye0 bdndred
and nine (709) in the city of Tacoma,
county of Pierce, territory o. Washington,
for labor performed upon and assistance
rendered in doing thinning and iron work. y
That the name of the owner or reputed
owner is Otto Quad. That MeSsrs. Moore
q Co. employed said Warren & Hines to
perform such labor and render such assist
ance, upon the following terms and con-
ditions, tOWit: The said Moore e Co.
agreed to pay the said Warren & Hines for
such labor and assistance in putting on
and doing the work and furnishing the ma
terial for timing and iron work the sum Of
four hundred and sixty-iYe dollars.
That said contract has been faithfully
performed and fully complied with on the
part of said Warren & Hines, who per-
formed labor upon and assisted in timing
and iron work according to their contract
aforesaid that for extra work claimants
demand $12.35.
That said labor and assistance were so
performed and rendered upon said build
ing aforesaid, between the 10Th day of July,
1883, and the 25th day of August, and the
rendition of said services was closed on the
AOll udy VI august, anu ullGby udyb nave
not elapsed since that time. That the
amount of claimants demand for said
services is four hundred and seventy-seven
35-lC0 dollars. That no part thereof has
been paid except three hundred dollars,
and there is now due and remaining un-
paid thereon, after deducting all Just cred
Its and offsets, the sum Ofone hundred and
seventy-sevel 35-1OO dollars, in which
amount he laims a lien upon said lots
aforesaid"
puted owner if known, and also the name
of the person by whom he was employed
or to whom he furnished the materials
with a statement of the terms and condi-
tions of the contract, if any, and also de-
scription of the property to be charged
with the lien, sufficient for Identification"
From which it will be seen that one of
the requisites of the notice is that property
to be charged should be described. This
requisite is entirely omitted in the notice
under consideration, for while it is true
that 1t states that lien is claimed upon
certain described lots of land, it nowhere
appears that the building on which the
work was done was situated on said lots.
In fact, it does not appear from said no
tice that the work had been done upon any
building, improvement or structure. The
reference to the building aforesaid" in
the clause relating to the time
when the work was done was without
force, as no building aforesaid" anywhere
appeared in the notice. This omission is
fatal. 1t needs no argument to show that
a lien cannot be maintained on certain lots
unless the building upon which the work
was done is situated on or connected with
said lots. The statute gives lieu upon the
building, and so much land upon which
the same is situated as is necessary to the
convenient use therefor. And the notice
must show that the lien is claimed upon
the building upon which the work was
done. And when the notice fails to assert
any claim as against the building which is
the primary subject of the lien, the attempt
to assert such claim on the land which at
best is but the secondary subject, must fail.
The lien upon the land is incident to the
lien upon the building, and only given for
the reason that without it the lieH upon
the building would be without value. No
other conclusion can be gathered from the
entire scope of the law relating to this sub
ject. But as we have seen, this notice not
only did not claim a lien upon building
upon the lots TO be charged, but also failed
to claim lien upon the or any building at
all.
>