The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-11-07
HIS LIEN DEFECTIVE.
Referee Finds Against Potvin
in Denny Hotel Case.
he IS PREPARED TO APPEAL.
His Notice Was Not Regular and Corr
nell's Claim IL Found First After
Other Liens.

Fahien :. Potvin loses his s1aS. coo suit
against the nenny Hotel Company and
the property is 10 be sold to satisfy the
sleo,ooo mortgage held by Cornell univer-
sity. This Is the substance OF the report
OF Referee W. II. Bell. who gives the
Judgment liens OF Schwabacher Bros. &
Co. Charles Hill 4 Co. and the Seattle
Hardware Company priority over the
University IN payment from proceeds of
the sale, but this cuts no great figure. as
the total sum is less than Sl0NM. The
case hinged on the validity or Potvin's no
tiee OF lien on the Denny hotel property
for sl6e.eoo. and MFR. Bell holds the notice
invalid because ii did not include the
plans and specifications OF the building:
because Potyin abandoned work on the
contract and because he claimed as eN-
tras work which was provided for in tho
original contract, and vice versa. l.. &.
Gilman. who. with John Wiley and
George Is. de Steiguer, represented Mr.
potvin. said last night that exceptions
would he taken 10 the report. and II thu
superior court did not set Il aside. an
appeal would be taken 10 the supreme
court.
la the Notice SUFFICIENT
In the conclusions of law the referee
saws sin part:
The first question Is the suf'iclency Of
PoNrin's lien notice. That notice ia the
basis of the present suit and unless tt
complies in substance with the require
ments OF the statute relating TO ne
chanics' liens IL must fail. While IL is
still an open question whether IT is neces-
saTy TO incorporate an itemiged state
ment OF labor performed and materials
furnished In the lien notice, in order to
effect "A compliance with the statute. yet
it would seem the better rule TO require
such statement TO be filed in all cases.
In the lien notice SleS. was claimed
for work performed and materials fur
nshed under the original contract. and
S540S3.2 Is for extra labor and materials. al
though IL there appeared that the entire
contract price was only Slao.oH ana the
contract had been abandoned before com
pietion. when in compliance with de-
mand from the defendants some time SUBJ
sequent 20 the commencement OF this &C
ton to foreclose. the lien claimant pre-
pared an itemiZed statement OF his de-
mand, II was discovered that many
items had been included both in the total
sum for work under the original contract
and In the total sum claimed for extras
and on the trial it was admitted that sio,"
0.S2 should be deducted.
Several Fatal Defects.
The next objection TO the suficiency or
the lien notice is that the full amount OF
all credits and offsets is not stated. This
objection seems TO be well taken. ihe
whole amount agreed TO be paid Tor COM
claimed in the lien notice is siss.ai'so. iess
SIS 600 paid by the Denny Hotel Company
on account. on the trial tho claimant
Potvin admitted that 1t would have taken
about $l2. 200 so complete tho same accoru-
ing 30 the original contract. while tne
proofs showed that II would have cost Sls.-
900 but 40 credit whatever was given or
deduction made on account 0f the uncom-
pleted work and no facts stated by the
aid of which the amount of such credit
or Offset could be determined.
THE next objection urged. and ons
eous-.y fafal. is that the claimant wilful-
IN and knowingly demanded a sum in ex-
cess OF the amount actually due. The
statement diled in this case is so grossly
in excess OF the amount actually due, and
exhibits such wanton and reckless disre-
gard OF facts that II cannot nnder any pos
sible view be sustained.
THE last objection is that the plaindn
abandoned tle contract. leaving subs.an-
tial portion uDCompieted. The excuse given
and principally relied on as a Justification
in this case was that the Denny Hotel Com
panv the owner. had neglected and redus-
ed 10 pay for the value or the extra labor
done and materials furnished after the
same was due. IL was also claimed that
the plaIntin had not been paid his full
50 pcr cent. Tor all labor performed and
materials furnished. as provided for an tho
special contract: but this excuse was rnoFe
An the nature OF an AiteT~ulouAnt, iaAtu ha1
no Foundation I'm fact. The plaintiff not on
lv received all that he was entitled 20 un-
der. tho contract. but in addition CD per
cent. of the value Of all extras for wslich
written bids were submitted and accepted
II then the contractors demand for pay
snent IN full for liis completed extras was
premature. hts subsequent abandonment,
aped on the failure TO comply Herewith.
was un 1ustshable and he has no standing
20 enforce a lien for the reasonable value
OF the materials furnished and labor per-
formed.
Posvfn Gets Nothing.
II conclude that the action IN which
Potvfn ia plaintiff should be dismissed, and
that tho answer filed nv Potvtn IN the case
OF the Cornell University ~. che Denny
Hotel Company. and others. in the n1tra
Of a cross-complaint should also be DIS
missed. that the Cornell University is en-
titled 10 judgment against the Denny Ho-
tel Company for 100000, with interest az
~ per cert per annum from July, 1871.
together with fts costs and attorney zee
nf & OO0. that a decree should be entered
forpedosiug fhs mortgage Of the Cornell
University, and the proceeds arising from
rhe sale 10 be applied AZ follows:
'.Fsrs.-T'o the reimbursement Of the Cor
nell University and Dexter Horton Il Cos
for moneys advanced by baem 10 carry
on this litigation.
''secgnf-TD the payment and satisfaction
az the judgment liens cf Schwabachep
Bros. A. Co and Charles Hill Company.
'sT'lsra-To the payment ~ the Judgment
lien Of Bhe Seattle Hardware Company.
',Fulrth-To the discharge OF f1e 1udg-
men, of the plaintiff. the Cornell UNIVERSE
~. together With costs. and an attorneys
fee 81 1000.
.'TrFf4h-1-o the discharge % all other
liens against 4sie premises n order Of tne.n
rank a. aleretofors determined.