, 1892-03-05
LIGHT ON LIEN LAW
Judge Robinson's Decision Rem
dered Today.
An Interesting Law Point i'm the
Case OF j. w. Roberts, Plain
tiff, VS.. brewery & Sons, Defend-
ants.
Judge Robinson rendered an opinion in
which the following are the facts:

Judge Robinson rendered an opinion in
which the following are the facts:
In the superior court of the state OF
Washington, in and for Thurston county
J, w. Roberts, plaintiff Us brewery &
/ Sons, defendants.
In April, 1891, I. c. Ellis, the owner
thereof, leased in writing, lot s in block 6
OF this city, to brewery & Sons, for period
OF flye years from May l, 1891, with per
mission to the said Dreweries to put such
Improvements on such property as they
might deem proper, with the privilege of
removing such improvements from the lot
at the expiration of the lease. This plain
tiff under contract with brewery .d5 Sons,
erected thereon frame, tWO-story feed
barn and livery stable for the sum of $780,
90. Only $492.25 was paid by brewery &
Sons on such building. At the proper
time, upon failure of brewery g. Sons to
pay the amount due for the material and
labor in and upon said building, the plain
tiff filed lien, for the balance due, against
such building and lot. This suit was
brought to foreclose that lien, and the
only question before the court is whether
or not the lien attaches to and holds the
lot.
Ellis insists that no interest in the lot
outside of the lessees' interest, is subject to
this lien; that brewery & Sons could not
legally make any contract which would eff
feet his interest in this property; that
brewery q Sons, owning less than fee
simple estate in that lot, could only bind
their interest therein, and with these con.
tentlons fully agree Section 1857 of the
code provides 'for work or labor done, or
material furnished, whether done or fur
nlshed at the expense of the owner of the
building, or improvements, or his AGENT
and declares that ''every contractor sub
contractor, architect, builder or person
having charge of the construction of any
building, or other improvement, shall be
held to be the agent Of the owner for the
purposes of this chapter" But this sec
ton only creates liens against the struc-
ture, and does not provide for lien against
lands. therefore this statutory agency could
not affect Ellis as to the lot. Section 1859
OF the code provides for liens against the
lands as follows:
''The land upon which any building, i'm
prOVement or structure is constructed, to-
,gether with convenient space about the
same, or so much as may be required for
the convenient use and occupation thereof,
to be determined by the court on render
ing judgment, is also subject to the lien,
It, at the commencement Of the work or of
the furnishing of the materials for the
same, the land belonged to the person
who caused said building, Improvement or
structure to be constructed, altered or re-
pared; but If such person owned less than
Tee simple estate in such land then only
his interest therein is subject to such lien.''
Section 1865 prescribes how lien NAV be
prevented from attaching to the land, as
provided in section 1857, but this section
(195) authorizes no lien against lands
only against the building or other improve
Iment,-i!eaving the authority to create
lien against the land to section 1853. But
the latter part of this section (1959) says,
'lf such person Ii. e.-the person who
caused such building, Improvement or
structure to be constructed) owned less
than fee simple estate in such land, Ii. e.
the lands upon which such improvements
stood) then only his interest therein is sub
jected to such lien"
| find it impossible to give any force,
whatever, to the latter part of that section
and at the same time permit section 1866 to
stand. The latter relates only to proceed
uIe, the former is a direct prohibition
against lien attaching to any greater in
terest than the lessee's. Section 1865 does
not enlarge or create any new causes of
liens other than those expressed in section
1857.
In my Judgment this lien can only be
foreclosed against the structure in connec-
ton with the interest or right of possession
to this lot resting in the lesees by reason of
their lease, and that the interest held by
this lien is no greater or other than that Of
DreWry & Sons,
]. W. ROBINSON, Judge.