The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-04-17
"A SINGULAR BUTTE CASE.
The Supreme Court Passes Upon an
appeal Involving the Labor
Lien Law
Barnard Should Have Seen 20 II
That the Subcontractors
Were Paid.
a Decision Concernin< subscription 20
build an Opera House AZ Great
Fails.

The supreme court handed down several
decisions yesterday. Among them IL one
affecting she rights OF parties interested
/ nnder the labor lien OF Montana This case
was appealed from Silver Bow county BY A.
W. Barnard, the respondents being q. W.
Gould ct a. In passing upon ths appeal
tho supreme court sad; The record
herein presents a singular eass. The ae-
tion wss brought 10 enforce payment OF
/ S3g56O for certain plumbing alleged 10
! have been done IL defendants building al
I Butte, by foreclosure OF mechanics iisa
on the building. The controversy osntsrs
upon the plumbing done In fitting rosms
I in the building 20 be occupied by DR.. Muir
ray. 10 Appeara that she block Was rebuilt
after destruction BY FIRE By J. W. Lam
/ bourn. contractor and builder. under . con-
tract with defendant Barnard, the owner
/ OF the property; that the contract provided
+ for the construction OF tbs block with
certain plumbing 30 be done therein. which
bnuding contract according 20 the tssti-
mony Of defendant. contemplated and in
cluded the plumbing which is ths subject
OF ths controversy In this suit II further
appears that plaintiffs were contracted with
BY said Lapibourn 90 do certain other
plumbing in the buildinR. under two
special contracts, one OF which called for
plumbing 10 the amount Of 500: and the
other called for plumbing 90 the amount Of
Si65. In their complaint plaintiffs SET
forth three items OF plumbing. the first two
above mentioned. and she third item OF
S345.60. and admit payment of the fret
two. ana seek 90 enfo 90 payment for the
thi item by this action, by foreclosure of
the lien which il appears they filed upon
said property. The defendant denies that
She value Of the third item OF plumbing sx-
ceeded Sl0l and also alleges that the same |
was Included and paid for in the plumbing /
comprised 10 ths contract above mentioned. |
for Nhieh 500 we're paid. The jury im- /
pansled TO Try the Issue involved, returned I
their verdict Ia favor Of plaintiffs. and iudg- |
ment was rendered accordingly, f0reclosing /
their lien The case is here on defendants /
appeal from tbs order denying his motion /
for new trial, on the assignm6nt thai the /
evidence Is insufficient to support the YER
dict Appellants counsel insisting that
there Is no evidence 80 support the nnding
that the plumbing here IN controversy was
done under or by virtue Of any contract.
The court said IL was shown by the evil
denoo offered By defendant that the plumb
ing in controversy was done in fitting up
the rooms for DR.. Murray. and provided In
the contract between defendant. Barnard,
ana LAmbouins cuuEhCtott 70 tHoct euu
finish said block. Therefore II appeared
that the plumbing IN controversy was NOT
work. or ext ense. put upon the building in
excess OF that oontem plated by the build
ing contract. And 10 also follows that Con.
tractor LambOurn, pursuant to the terms
Of tue bunding contract, was obliged to do.
or cause 20 be done. the plumbing in the
rooms, as lt was found by the owner in
checking the work over.
The case made DOT shows that defendant
cont acted with LambouTn TO have said
plumbing in she rooms 10 be occupied b.
DR.. Murray, done along with the rest Of
the plumbing called for in the building
contfact, aud that defendant paid Lam
bourn therefor. But that plaintiffs re-
ceived payment for said planning is not
shown. As the lien law now stands in this /
state. in order TO protect his proI erty i
against this lien, Barnard should have seen /
TO it that the sub-cOntraotors were paid Tor /
wO done within the contract price. Ise /
building 10 therefore liable 20 a lien thore /
To-. 4 he order denying a new trial was
affi med.
In the oass Of Thomas Kane & Co, ap- /
psllant, vs. 9. Z. Downing, respondent, /
O. ON Cascade county the order denying
PLAINTIFF motion for new trial was re-
versed and the case remanded for a new
trial according TO The views of the supreme
couN IN the opinion. j he action was
founded upon twO promises by defendant
TO pay 500 and 800 by way OF a subsoup-
tion 70 - fund for the purpose Of construct
ing an opera house 81 Great Falls. The
? lAluiia obtained judgment against the
Great Falls Opera House company for
S15Lfs. ami brought this action 10 enforce
tue payment OF the defendants subscrip-
tion. Ihs defendant claimed that he re-
voked his subscription ana had entered In to
another scheme TO build an opera house.
The jury rendered a verIlct for defendant
ani the plaintiff moved for new trial.
The supreme court said that with proper
ruling as TO admission OF testimony con-
slsteut With the mate al allegations of tue
Ileadings. and with proper instructions 20
tie Jury verdict would have been
PROMPTLY returned for the plaintiff, be-
cause according 70 the showing Of the
record no Substantial defense TO the action
was supported by proof.
Ise ArabelIa n lur. mahe In Hnl.nn