The herald., 1897-03-03
THE CONTRACT LAW
Judge Shaw Exhsustiveiy Reviews the Law
Upon Liens

Upon Liens
An opinion was handed down by Judge
Shaw yesterday in the case of Brown
& Fruhling VS. Robert Jordan ct al, an
action to foreclose a mechanics lien,
the principal point involved being the
question whether or not the action was
prematurely brought.
Jordan was the original contractor,
and the plaintiffs respectively furnish
ed to him material for the building un =
| der sub-contracts with him. BY the
original contract with the oTncr one
! fourth Of the contract price of the work
| was, as the law requires, made payable
| thirty-fiVe days after the completion Of
| the building. The building was COM
| pleted on February q, 1897. The plaint-
| ifs liens were filed on March Is 1sa-
and the action t. foreclose these was
begun on March 25th, which 'frdi1 tn
the last paIecome due. and only thirty
alsys after the completion Of the build
/ - al the preceding installments df
re contract price h,Td become due anl
had been paid TO Jordan by the owner
| before the filing of these liens. The
| contract between the owner and Jordan
for the erection Of the building was
made in the manner and form required
by the statute, and was duly filed FOR
RECORD before the WOlK was DtkQn, an 1
was in all respects valid contract
THE cases and decisions on the sub
ject of mechanics liens says Judge
Shaw, under the law as amended in 1875
and 1887. in which contracts for the erec-
ton Of buildings were attempted to he
made and have been held to be invalid
because they did not in all respects COM
ply with the statute, and in which il
was consequently held that the right Of
t1a lalN al IL,
tractor to file and foreclose a lien was
not in any respect governed or con-
trolled by the terms of such attempted
contract, have been so numerous Of late
years as to apparently give rise to ami
furnish some excuse for the ASSUMPTION
on the part of some persons that the da-
cisions under former laws holding that
the right to a subordinate lien was ds-
pendent on the terms Of the original
contract. The provisions of law gov
erning this subject is found in section
l190 Of the code of civil procedure. 1t is
as follows:
"Section 1880. No lien provided for
in this chapter binds any building, etc.
for period longer than ninety DAYS
after the same has been filed, unless pro-
ceedings be commenced in o proper
court within that time to enforce the
same; or if a credit be given. then ninety
days after the expiration Of such credit
but no lien continues in force for long
er time than two years fsom the time thu
work is completed by any agreement to
give credit.
by the amendments CT 1885 and 1887 10
sections 1880 and 1884 the original con
tracts must contain certain conditions
designed for the protection of persons
furnishing materials or labor to III
contractor. and failure to make a con-
tract conforming to these requirements
renders the contract attempted to be
made Invalid and in that case a lien Is
given direct to the person thus furnish
ing materials or labor for the value
of the material or labor he contributed
to the building. without regard to the
contract attempted to be made by tho
owner with the original contractor. l.
has been held in many cases that in
case such a void contract, which is the
same as no contract, the person so as
sisting in the erection of the building
may file claim of lien after completion,
and may foreclose the same entirely re-
gardless of the terms of the attempted
original contract But in the case Of a
valid contract the contrary is the case.
1t has always been held that the liens of
sub-contractors, material men and la
borers. under valid original contract