Waterbury Democrat., 1901-02-15
FINDING OF THE COURT.
Case of Waterbury Lumber and Coal Co ys Patrick T, Coogan.

of the Waterbury Lumber and Coal Go vS Patrick Coogan, rendered by Chief Justice Andrews:
 This was a complaint claiming the Foreclosure of a mechanics lien. The facts are, briefly, as set forth in the finding, like this. The defendant, Pat rick T. COogan, in the 22d day of July, 1899, made d written contract with B. A. Irion, which provides that Irion was to build a dwelling house for him. If lrlOn completed the house, furnish Ing all the material and doing all the work, then q certain sum was to be paid. If he neglected, refused, or in any wise failed to complete the house, then less sum was to be paid. The contract pointed out the way in which the lesser sum was to be aScertalned. Irion did neglect and omit to complete the house to q very material extent. Taking the account between IriOn and MT Coogan as it is shown and apply ing to it the stipulation of the contract. 1t appears that the largest sum which Irion could demand or collect under it's terms for all the services he rendered. and all the materials he furnished, would be S1,61S.32. And this is so for the reason that this is the price which Coogan agreed by that contract to pay and lrion agreed to accept for the ser vices rendered and the materials fur niShed by Irion in and about the said dwelling house. After the making of the contract 1rion agreed with the Wa terbury Lumber and Coal Co to furnish lumber to be used by him in building the said house. The plaintiff did fur nish lumber to the amount of ST .43o.I9 It is not stated and il does not appear from the contract between the plain tiff and Irion that this was known to NIT Coogan orWas ever asSented to by him prior to the time. October 12th, 1899, when the plaintiff gave notice of its intention to claim T lien. At that time Irion had abandoned his contract and few days later the plaintiff ceased to furnish lumber
 The plaintiff as such sub contractor seeks in this action to collect it's debt against Irion. The trial court decided this case. as it would seem from the memorandum of decision. upon the the ory that radical change was made in the law of this state respecting me- chanics' lien by the statute of 1855; to the effect that a Sub-contractor seeking to enforce such a lien was not limited to the amount due from the proprietor to the original contractor, but had a direct lien against the proprietor for all the services and materials he had furnished. We think the court was mistaken as to any such change hay
  estate for improvements put upon them otherwise than by contract with the owner are of two classes. These may be imposed in favor Of a sub- contractor. or under certain circum- stances they may be imposed on the ground that the improvements have so enhanced the value of the estate that it would be inequitable to allow the owner to be enriched at the expense of hJ- statute of 1855 was one of the former class. Spaulding vs Thompson. Feel. Soc. ? Conn. 5I3,5II. The lien was to be measured not by amount of added value. but by the amount which the labor and materials cost not exceeding the contract price. And It seems 10 us that the statutes indicate that no such change was intended to be made. Prior to 1853 q lien by a subcontractor was limited to the amount due from the proprietor' These or equivalent words were in all the acts. Since that time the language of the several stat utes is that the lien of q sub-contrac- tor shall not attach in the whole to d greater amount than the proprietor agreed to pay to the original contrac- tor. These statutes also provide for the deduction from that amount of such payments as the proprietor may have made in good faith before he re- ceiyed notice of the lien. Acts ISoo, chapter G4.
 If all the parties in every lien case acted in good faith and fully Kept their contracts these provisions Wonlu describe the same sum. The amount sdue from the propnetof would be precisely the amount which the contractor agreed to take less the payments he hau 1haue in good faith. The question then m the present case may be stated III this way: what amount did the defendant by his contract agree to pay lrlon TOT the services rendered and mateflals furnished by him in the construcuon of the said house? The latest law in this state governing mechanics liens is chapter 121, page 1052, public acts 1899. The plaintiff must recover un- der that act if he can recover at all. Its contract with Irion was made after that act went into effect. The sec ond section of the chapter named en- acts-and this is a re-enactment of the previous statute-that mo such lien shall attach to any building or it's ap- purtenances or to the land on which the same may stand in favor of any person to a greater amount in the whole than the price which the owner agreed to pay for such building and its appurtenanceS." When we read
 
 the contract which the defendant made with Irion and take notes of the provisions of article 4 of that con tract, We see that he agrees to pay $4,1OO for the house; but only S4 100 z less such sum, if any. as he might have paid to make good the faults or omis- sions of Irion. The defendant did not agree to pay $4,1O0 unless Irion com pleted the house. The finding shows that he did not complete it. That fhe defendant was obliged to pay and did pay to make good his faults and omissions-and the sum is found req Aonable-the sum of $2,4 .6S. The contract says that this sum is to be deducted from the amount of the con fract: but that if any balance on the S1nount of this contract remains after ahe completion of the work the same Ahall belong to the contractor or the person legally representing him. The