Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-10-24
Sarchet, ct al, '. Legg, MultnOmah
County.
Decided, October IT, 1911.

AWuuAgs
Decided, October II, 1911.
A. II. Sarchet, Linnyille & Meyers,
The Ross Company, Mason Percy &
StFickler, respondents, v Hattie E.
Legg, appellant. Appeal from the
circuit court for Multnomah county.
Hon. w. n. Gatens, Judge. Argued
and submitted October II, 1911. c.
A. Sheppard and John B. Moon on
the brief) for respondents. j. F.
Boothe for appellant. Moore, J. Re-
versed.
This Is a suit to foreclose alleged
mechanics liens The defendant,
Hattie E. Legg entered into a con-
tract with w. A. Ridgen whereby he
stipulated to furnish the material
and to construct for her a building
on her lot in Pleasant View Addition
to Portland. Ridgen sublet the plas-
tering of the house to the plaintiff
A. H. Sarchet, the plumbing to Linn
Vile & Meyers, partners, and the ce-
ment work to B. c. Ross. The lat
ter obtaining from Mason, Percy &
Strickler, a corporation, material
that was used in the structure. The
value of the cement and the agreed
price of the work so underlet not
having been fully paid, lien notices
were filed against the defendant
real property by Linnville G. Meyers
October 4, 1909, for $211; by Mason
Percy & Strickler, October 9th, for
$27; and by Sarchet, October 18th, foI
$3.50. The latter instituted this
suit making the other lien claimants
co-defendants who, answering inter
posed cross complaints to foreclose
their liens. Answers to the several
complaints were filed by Mrs. Lege
and the cause being at issue was
tried, whereupon each claimant was
awarded the sum respectively de-
manded with interest from the time
the notice was filed and S1.OO as
clerks fees. There was also allowed
attorneys fees as follows. Sarchet
$35; Mason, Percy & Strickler, $25
and Linnvllle & Meyers, $50. From
this decree Mrs. Legg appeals.
Moore, j. The only question in
volved Is whether or not the lien no
tices were filed within the time lin
tied. In order to create a lien the
original contractor must within go
days after the completion Of his con-
tract, and all other claimants must
within 30 days after the completion,
alteration or repair of structure. or
after he has ceased to furnish mater
ials therefor, file with the clerk a
claim, etc. l.. o. L. Sec. 7420. Nei-
ther OF the claimants herein being an
original contractor 1t is insisted that
the notices were not filed within 80
days after the completion of the
building or after the claimants
ceased to furnish materials therefor,
and such being the case an error was
committed in foreclosing the alleged
liens.
ID. B. Fleckinger, an architect, who
prepared the plans and specifications
OF the building and supervised its
construction, testified that Ridgen
did not do any work on the house af-
ter August l, 1909, asserting that II
was completed at that time and that
about two weeks thereafter Mrs.
Legg accepted the building and paid
the contractor the remainder due.
This witness says he did not accent
the house because of interior work
manship, but that Mrs. Legg ac-
quiesced In the defective handiworll
contrary to his orders. That in or
der to connect boiler to be installed
in the building with range Ridgen
was required to extend a pipe
through a wall which work he never
performed, saying; THE owner and
the contractor had mutually agreed to
cut 1t out entirely from the plans
and specifications Fleckinger, on
cross examination, in referring to the
performance of labor after August
IA, 1909, when the building was ac-
cepted by the owner testified as fol-
lows; 81 employed the subcontract-
ore to come on and finish some work
that didn't seem to be Incorporated in
Ridgen's contract, and which from
his standpoint he refused to do" He
further stated upon oath that after
Mrs, Legg paid for constructing the
house he had this piece of pipe put
through the wall but could not state
whether it was in August or Septem-
Der, 1909. ii. c, Ross, whose EN-
ploye put in the pipe to connect the
range and the boiler in fixing the
time when the work was done, testl-
fled as follows: "To the best of my
recollection It was in October; |
could not say without looking up the
records" on cross examination he
was asked, DO you know what time
in October you did this work?' and
he replied. Not without getting the
records" O. Don't know whether
It was the middle or fore part of the
month? 1t may have been after the
middle of October?" A. 1T may have
been" Q. WAS any one living in
the house when you did this work p
A. MY understanding is there was a
tenant in both apartments | was not
at the house but | do remember the
tenants ringing up and complaining
that the work was incomplete and
wanting to know If l had the con.
tract"
S. c, Jaeger an electrical engineer
whose employe wired defendants
building, testified that on October Z
1909, Ridgen notified him that the
wiring In the attic should be rear
ranged and that switch had been
omitted from bed room and an
S----- --------------------