The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-12-06
1 BIG SUIT DECIDED.
cunyeme Courts Judgment on
Denny Hotel Cases.
s,cHT OF LIEN HOLDS GOOD.


Lat t<Eu uEGtGf2 " &&&H - RGS Et&c C0Aft
= the consolidated cases against the
nruuv Hotel Company the court has
-s..~d upon the sufficisncy of the builders
- fled by Fabisn s. Potvin. contractor.
.ss~r nominal assignment Of his claim TO
nwrter Horton Il Co, reversing the decis-
- az The lover court that the right Of
- ~, thereby waived. The court also
$500 upon . stipulation making sec
srdsry claim primary, and modified the
,.,,ns made some time ago that such
..srusssion vas of no effect. The remitti-
=, vss aled In the superior court yester-
lzT.
The cases are entitled Fsbien 8. Potvin.
snneliant, VI. the Denny Hotel Company.
,s-,oodent, and the Cornell University.
,.s,ondsnt. va the Denny Hotel Company
!. i DESCENDANTS, Fabien s. Potvin. Hut
az Bros. Manufacturing Company and
pexter Horton Il Co.. appellants The
ki.tsry Of the litigation 10 substantially
fas following:
On Jugy 2, isso, the hotel company en-
s,r~d into contract with Pctvin for the
construction of the building, the con-
tractor 10 receive sis6. 600. payable in
la.sailments OF % per cent. upon the
estimate made by the architects a. stated
p~riods. The contract also provided for
furthsr compensation for extra labor and
nsterisis. During the tendency OF the
work q controversy arose between the
hotel company and the contractor, and
IL is claimed that the company refused to
make any further payments or 70 allow
Po.vin 20 proceed, and he Was compslled
70 abandon IL before the building was
completed.
Within the same time Potvin gave Dex-
Der Horton 4 Co. an order on she hotel
company for whatever money might be-
come dns on the contract. and this order
xs duly accepted.
On April 2, 1891. Potvin fled notice of
len. claiming si66. 900. including $685.
Tor extras, and brought an action to fore
close the lien, joining a. parties tho Cor
nell university and the other defendants.
The university in December. iSsS, had
Ioaned 500. 900 to the hotel company,
uking promissory note and q mortgage
on the real estate. and thereafter brought
an action to foreelose the mortgage. max
iag Potvin 3 defendant. The other de-
isndanss, except Dexter Horton q Co,
we're sub-contrnc;ors, material men and
lsbofers, who had fled lien notices against
the property. On motion Of Potvin the
banking company was made defendant.
In answering the foregoing order and
acceptance the university and the hotel
company claimed that the contractor had
waved and released his right To a lien.
and Dexter Horton Il Co. answered that
he order was given as collateral security
ipr sums advanced during the progress of
|. lie building; tina, such sums as were paid
o. the order had been credited 10 Potvin
ssd that he had been allowed TO check
asainst them. Potvin replied that the
order Was not intended as An as
nsnment, but as check upon
Bis expenditures, and had been
required by Dexter Horton q Co. in order
hat all moneys received on the contract
should pass through the bank. When the
fsses as consolidated came on for trial the
sniversity and the hotel company moved
10 dismiss on the ground that Potvin had
waived his right of lien. The motion was
granted. and Potvin and Dexter Horton b
Go. appealed.
Ia former action the lien claims of
Hattig Bros. Manufacturing Company
and OF the Seattle Hard ware Company
we're establish vi as co-ordinate. but sub
Jet TO the mortgage of the university.
These liens we're set up in the action, and
on the trial the Seattle Hardware Com
rany introduced stipulation upon which
its claim was awarded priority over the
other claims. The Huttig Bros Manufac-
turing Company appealed from this de-
sision.
Respondents eontended that the order
mentioned above operated 10 defeat
fo,vin's right of lien, regardless of
xheshsr IL had been given as security or
otherwise. Tho supreme court holds
differently, and states that The order was
N effect an equitable assignment. and the
purpose for which il had been given was
immaterial. There was no reason known
70 tue court Why the right OF lien in such
sesse shall Re defeated. The court said !;
Although this order operated IS an
assignment, Potvin was still Interested in
Enforcing tue claim. for bis original liza
tAiy 10 Dexter Horton q Co. WAS not ex-
nhsaishsd by the giving of the order. IL
l We amount called tor was paid, then his
naensednens 10 them was discharged 10
l saa s1ieni; but ii not paid. he WAS liable
"a TIE full amount Clearly. be should he
A-aaed 70 protect, preserve and enforce
as~carity. even though Dexter Horton
ata are entitled 20 receive the money
asa sfpiy It upon his indeotedness"
Asio the further question raised by the
tifssl Of the Hattig Bros. Manufacturing
ss&psny. the court thinks the decree was
ssorsoas. The priority Of the claims
sn directly involved in the former suit.
- TIE fact that the Seattle Hard sare
snpany did not undertake them TO avail
sssi Of is right Of priority does not alter
~sasastion in this action. The univsr-
~ Claimed that under this view the
easstioa Of priority should be set aside.
81 TIE court did no: SO view - The
ss-sioa on this point IS IS follows:
u % lmmaterial TO Cornell university
-esaer the amount IL has stipulated
losia ee adiudged prior 60 its claim 10
- 70 the Seattle Ii ARD ware Company or
sRpoFtlone4 - said company or ths
i ~AS claimants. The result 10 the same
NotneA university. Consequently we
\ TIE op,aion that the stipu alton
-saa De given force 10 tie extent OF
"1aias priority 20 the lien claimants
ssasd 81 the extent Of the sum stipn-
I -, tas that tie same should be sppor-
soaed between the Seattle Hardware
sApany AID tie other lien claimants In
II .sgefson 10 their respective claims as
A~'isasd Ia sue former action.
Aee cause came up for rsheSEins No
s1ecr =. upon petition Of the Seattle
assare Company. asking that the ludg-
-sas % 80 modified as 20 award its Claim
Is.ssssy over the Cornell university mort
-. according - the stipulation entered
- oe'~een the parties Upon further
~assFsiion Of toe matter the court held
- the saect intended sheald be given TO
III IN alton. Notwithstanding the tact
IN - we fTt0rlties had been settled by the
NFEfrR TIA - Il as.nftIA