Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-10-24
OREGON SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Fall Published BY Courtesy p A. Reporter Of the
Supreme Court

that this work, which was required
under his original contract, was COM
pleted on that day, saying: "Ridgen
was on the job at the time" This
witness says he remembers the day
this work was done because Of hav-
ing received from a customer a sum
of money, the payment Of which was
noted at that time in his day book
No day book was produced, however,
to substantiate the fact. Mrs. Legg
testified that the light on the newell
post was put in long prior to the
time stated, but that the switch in
the bedroom might have been put in
later. Her daughter, Bessie, testified
that she never saw Ridgen at the
building after the settlement had
been consummated on August IA,
1909.
The testimony also. shows that
some cement work, specified in Rid
gems contract was omitted and has
never. been performed It does not
appear, however. that such work was
to have been any part OF the house
and might have been the construc-
tion of a sidewalk for which no lien
is allowed. Harrisburg Lumber Co.
" Washburn 20 Ore $50. 1t cannot,
therefor, be said that the completion
of the building depended upon finish
ing the cement work
The electrical switch and the newell
post light asserted to have been put
in October T. 1909, and the pipe
placed through the wall which the
architect says may have been done
in August or September, but which
Ross asserts was performed in Octo-
ber, and possibly after the middle Of
that month, are relied upon to extend
the completion of the building so as
to authorize the filing of liens not
later than October II, 1909. Jagger's
sworn statement that "Ridgen was on
the job at that time" the electrical
work was completed, conyinces us
that he unintentionally erred in fix
ing October 7th as the day the labor
was performed, for the testimony
shows that after August Ia, 1909,
when the house was accepted, Ridgen
was never again seen at the building.
When real property is to be encum-
bered with a lien which attaches to
property without the owners con-
sent, the particular day of the per-
fOrmance of the work relied upon to
extend the completion of the build
ing ought not to be left in doubt as
1t is by the testimony of Ross No
attempt was made to show by any
memorandum when this work was
performed though he intimates that
record thereof was kept without
which his testimony is too vague and
indefinite to fix the particular day
when the pipe was placed in the wall.
In order to protect laborers and
material men, our statute makes am
pie provision and should be literally
construed in their favor on the
ground that the enactment is rem
edial. Where, however, the rights of
an owner who relying upon the COM
pletion of the building, has paid the
contract price or If an innocent
grantee Of the premises becomes in
volved, such triiling things as the
fastening of an electrical switch or
the placing Of a pipe through wall
should not be regarded as incidents
In the completion Of a building but
as repairs. Coffee " Smith 50 Ore.
53S; Crane Co. v. Ellis ia Pac. ATS.
The refusal of the architect to ap-
prove the work performed by Ridgen
is immaterial for so far as disclosed
by the evidence, Fleckinger was only
an agent and his principal, Mrs.
.Legg, could disregard his advice and
do as she pleased about accepting the
building. She exercised this privi-
lege August IA, 1909, when she paid
the contractor all the money to which
he was entitled except $95 which
sum he received September 10, 1909
The house was substantially COM
pleted when IL was completed and the
lien claimants by vigilence could
have discovered that fact, but they
waited, expecting to receive their
pay from Ridgen. and after learning
that he had absconded, they seek to
establish claims against the proper
ty, but as they were not watchful
they are not entitled, under the cir
cumstances detailed, to liens, and
hence the decree is reversed and their
several suits dismissed
Harmon, ct nj, V. Grants Pass Bank
Ing and Trust Co., ct nj, Josephine
County.
Decided, October II, 1911.
c. Il. Harmon, G. N. Bailey and l..
l., Jewell, appellants, V. Grants Pass
Banking and Trust Company, a cor
poraton, Holman Foskett Mines
Company, a corporation, and j. r..
Bailey, RESPONDENTS Appeal from the
circuit court for Josephine county.
Hon. f. NJ Calkins Judge. Argued
and submitted October 4, 1911. A.C.
Hough for appellants. o. S. Blanch-
ard for respondents. Moore, j. AT
frmed.
This Is a suit to have deed of
real property declared to be a mort
gage and for an accounting. The
facts are that the plaintiffs, C. f. Har-
mon, c. N, Bailey and l.. l.. Jewell
and the defendant j. r. Bialey on Oc-
tober l, 1907, gave to the defendant.
the Grants Pass Banking & Trust
Company corporation, hereinafter
called the Trust Company, a promis-
sorry note for SS,000.00 payable in a
year with interest from that date at
the rate of eight per cent per annum,
STIMULATING to pay such additional sum
Z A